Uncertainty in Decision-Making A Review of The International Business Literature

Cogent Business & Management
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20
Uncertainty in decision-making: A review of the

international business literature
Sniazhana Sniazhko |
To cite this article: Sniazhana Sniazhko | (2019) Uncertainty in decision-making: A review of

the international business literature, Cogent Business & Management, 6:1, 1650692, DOI:
10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
© 2019 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Published online: 20 Aug 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 33848
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 38 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20
Sniazhko, Cogent Business & Management (2019), 6: 1650692
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Uncertainty in decision-making: A review of the
international business literature
Sniazhana Sniazhko*
Received: 03 April 2019 Abstract: Uncertainty is a key contextual factor that affects the decision-making of
Accepted: 29 July 2019
multinational corporations on many types of international operation. However, the
Published: 06 August 2019
variety of ways in which uncertainty has been defined and studied in the interna-
*Corresponding author: Sniazhana
Sniazhko, School of Management and tional business literature, has contributed to a fragmented view of MNC behavior
Public Administration, University of and of the role of uncertainty in international decision-making. Adopting a broad
Vaasa, PL 700, Vaasa 65101, Finland.
E-mail: sniazhana.sniazhko@uva.fi view of uncertainty, and by means of a systematic review, this paper examines the
Reviewing editor::
treatment of uncertainty in international decision-making in the IB literature and
Etayankara Muralidharan, School of identifies directions for future research. The review organizes studies across 13
Business, MacEwan University,
Edmonton, Canada dimensions of uncertainty and eight approaches to managing it. The paper further
Additional information is available at
identifies five characteristics of individual decision-makers that have been shown to
the end of the article impact their perceptions of uncertainty and their choice of uncertainty manage-
ment approach. Based on this systematic review, the paper makes three main
critical observations about existing research: inconsistency in the conceptualization
and measurement of uncertainty, lack of diversity regarding the dimensions of
uncertainty included in single studies, and downplaying the role of individual deci-
sion-makers. A research agenda is presented that offers suggestions on how future
research might address these limitations.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Sniazhana Sniazhko is a doctoral researcher at How do international companies make decisions
the School of Management and Public about their international expansion, participation
Administration at the University of Vaasa in strategies, and their level of control and com-
Finland. Sniazhko’s research interests are in the mitment when future returns are uncertain? This
areas of international business, mergers and paper summarizes what we know about this
acquisitions, human resource management, and complicated phenomenon of uncertainty by dis-
managerial decision-making analysis. cussing 13 different dimensions of uncertainty
that companies are likely to face during interna-
tional decision-making, and presenting eight
approaches for how to manage these uncer-
tainties. The paper also identifies five character-
istics of individual decision-makers in the
companies that have been shown to impact their
Sniazhana Sniazhko perceptions of uncertainty and their choices of
uncertainty management approach. Lack of
clear distinctions among different dimensions of
uncertainty may result in misleading perceptions
of the real environment and subsequently to
risky and unjustified decisions. A better,
research-based understanding about uncertainty
and its management is important in increasing
the chances of a company’s survival in the
international business environment.
© 2019 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Page 1 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Subjects: Risk Management; Strategic Management; International Business
Keywords: uncertainty; decision-making; MNC; systematic review
1. Introduction
Uncertainty and its role in decision-making is an important phenomenon that has received consider-
able research attention within international business (IB) studies over the last five decades.
Uncertainty, defined as the lack of knowledge about the probabilities of the future state of events
(Knight, 1921), has been shown to affect multinational corporations’ (MNCs) speed of international
expansion, their internationalization paths, entry mode choices, and level of commitment (e.g.,
Aharoni, 1966; Aharoni, Tihanyi, & Connelly, 2011; Ahsan & Musteen, 2011; Johanson & Vahlne,
1977; Liesch, Welch, & Buckley, 2011). The inability of a decision-maker to eliminate uncertainty
completely constrains the effectiveness of decision-making and requires the adoption of approaches
that either help to reduce, or to cope with, uncertainty. Recent studies commonly differentiate
between exogenous and endogenous uncertainties, as well as environmental, industry, and firm
uncertainties. They also advocate the diligent management of uncertainty to improve the chances of
MNCs surviving in the international business environment (Certo, Connelly, & Tihanyi, 2008).
Although uncertainty has been incorporated into many studies on decision-making within MNCs,
the IB literature lacks clear distinctions between different dimensions of uncertainty and often
treats the concept inconsistently. Research distinguishes between environmental and firm uncer-
tainties, yet the dimensions used to capture such uncertainties vary significantly among studies.
This inconsistency is problematic because it provides conflicting results about MNCs’ decision-
making under uncertainty, impedes knowledge development and a systematic treatment of
uncertainty, and presents an incomplete picture of the role uncertainty plays in international
decision-making. In terms of practice, the lack of clear distinctions among different dimensions
of uncertainty may result in misleading perceptions of the real environment and subsequently to
risky and unjustified decisions (Brouthers, 1995).
In light of the above, this paper offers an in-depth analysis of what is known about uncertainty in
the IB literature. Accordingly, it first aims to provide insights into the ways in which uncertainty is
treated and managed in decision-making in the theoretical and empirical IB literature, and further,
to address the uncertainty treatment issues in international decision-making arising in the articles
reviewed. Overall, this paper seeks to offer a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge on
uncertainty in the IB literature, and to suggest areas for future research. In doing so, the paper
contributes to the literature on decision-making in IB in the following three ways. First, it addresses
the inconsistent conceptualization and measurement of uncertainty by organizing and synthesiz-
ing the dimensions of uncertainty into an integrative framework that should be useful to scholars
in this field. Second, the paper presents arguments for why being more consistent in the use of
concepts and measures of uncertainty, using a wider spectrum of different kinds of uncertainties,
and integrating the characteristics of the key individual decision-makers, would advance the field
and add significantly to the predictive validity of theoretical models. This serves to highlight key
issues that should be considered when deciding how and why to incorporate different dimensions
of uncertainty into empirical studies on MNC decision-making. Finally, the paper contributes to the
IB literature by proposing an agenda for future research on decision-making under uncertainty.
More specifically, the agenda provides suggestions for how the field could benefit from studies that
include (1) dimensions of uncertainty that are more conceptually and statistically parsimonious
and the greater use of subjective measures of uncertainty; (2) a wider spectrum of uncertainties, in
particular firm dimensions of uncertainty, within single studies; and (3) the role of individual
decision-makers in how different dimensions of uncertainty are perceived and managed within
the MNC. This paper complements existing reviews on similar topics (e.g., Ahsan & Musteen, 2011;
Shepherd & Rudd, 2014) by providing a more detailed categorization of uncertainty and an
extended critical review of uncertainty management in international decision-making, thus making
the review of broader value to scholars in different management disciplines.
Page 2 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
2. Method
The current research adopts the systematic literature review method, which offers an explicit,
trustworthy, and reproducible method to minimize bias, thus providing more reliable findings for
the evaluation and interpretation of previous research relevant to a particular theme of interest
(Alderson, Green, & Higgins, 2004). Since this paper integrates a framework-led approach to the
synthesis of the literature, the practices recommended by Denyer and Tranfield (2009) for con-
ducting a systematic literature review are most relevant. These practices have been designed
particularly for management and organization studies and have been used by other scholars to
conduct systematic literature reviews in the business field (e.g., Ellwood, Grimshaw, & Pandza,
2016). Denyer and Tranfield (2009) develop four key principles that should be evident within
a systematic literature review: transparency and inclusivity, and it should also be explanatory
and heuristic. In terms of transparency, this paper explicitly describes the processes and methods
employed in the review1. To demonstrate inclusivity and the quality of information sources, this
paper places emphasis on the reviewed articles’ reported methods of data collection and analysis,
with detailed information on uncertainty measures. This paper aims to provide an explanation of
conflicting extracts from individual studies and to integrate them into a holistic view on the
treatment of uncertainty in IB studies. The result of this review is heuristic in the sense that it
offers suggestions that may help in addressing the mixed findings regarding the impact of
uncertainty on MNC decision-making.
2.1. Literature search

To ensure the rigor of this review, the author consulted an information specialist in the field of
business studies, who assisted in the process of identifying relevant keywords, and searching
select databases with the chosen keywords. The following keywords were used to locate relevant
articles: (uncertainty OR complexity OR ambiguity OR risk OR dynamism OR “high-velocity” OR
instability OR equivocality) AND (“decision-making” OR decisions OR decision) AND (“international
business” OR “international businesses” OR “multinational enterprise” OR “multinational enter-
prises” OR “multinational corporation” OR “multinational corporations”). Using these keywords,
searches were conducted in the EBSCO, ABI Inform ProQuest, Elsevier Science Direct, and Emerald
databases. These databases are recognized as the key sources for retrieving relevant, up-to-date,
and historical information in the business field, and are commonly used by other scholars to
conduct either systematic (e.g., Ellwood et al., 2016) or other kinds of literature reviews (e.g.,
Radaelli & Sitton-Kent, 2016). The preliminary searches within the databases using the above-
mentioned keywords identified 495,753 articles.
2.2. Selection process

The two fundamental steps in a systematic literature review are (i) deciding on the inclusion and
exclusion criteria of studies, and (ii) assessing the quality of the studies to be included (Briner &
Walshe, 2015). The preliminary extensive list of identified articles was narrowed down to specifi-
cally relevant theoretical, conceptual, or empirical articles that focus on uncertainty in interna-
tional decision-making by applying the following three main inclusion criteria. First, in order to be
included, articles must be peer-reviewed studies published in scientific journals with the publica-
tion time period 19212–2017, and ranked at levels 3, 4, or 4* according to the Academic Journal
Guide (ABS, 2015). Earlier reviews suggest relying on top peer-reviewed academic journals because
such journals are the most influential on the IB field (Hennart & Slangen, 2015), as gatekeepers of
quality research (e.g., Vaara & Whittington, 2012), and are particularly influential in research on
uncertainty (e.g., Miller, 1992), providing explicit information on the various definitions of uncer-
tainty and/or its measurements. By applying the first inclusion criterion, the search generated
a long list of 4,861 articles.
Second, the articles included in the review should have an explicit focus on the impact of
uncertainty (or its synonyms)3 on MNCs’ international strategic (e.g., decisions about foreign direct
investment and related strategies, entry mode choices, and foreign partners and market selection),
and operational decisions (e.g., product development, staffing, inter-firm trade). Reading the titles
Page 3 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
of the articles and removing duplicates from the list reduced the number of articles to 581. Most of
the excluded articles related to non-management topics (e.g., technical or engineering articles,
articles with mathematical models, or articles in neuroscience). The abstracts of the 581 remaining
articles were read, which resulted in a total of 278 articles being deemed relevant for the review.
The articles that were left out focused on other units of analysis (e.g., focus on the country) rather
than on MNCs.
The third and final inclusion criterion was that articles should either look at the impact of
uncertainty on MNCs’ international decision-making, or examine the kind of uncertainty manage-
ment methods used. This criterion is applied to examine how the recognized uncertainties shape
MNCs’ decision-making under uncertainty and how MNCs respond to these uncertainties. Articles
that met all three inclusion criteria were considered for the review, producing a final total of 114
articles (18 conceptual; two theoretical; and 94 empirical, of which 84 were quantitative, six were
qualitative, two used mixed methods, and two a simulation model). All the articles provide an
explicit definition of uncertainty (or its synonyms) in terms of its dimensions (i.e., environmental,
industry, or firm uncertainties).
Among the 114 articles reviewed, seven of the conceptual articles do not define uncertainty in
terms of its dimensions and describe uncertainty as a general term for an MNC’s lack of informa-
tion about its external market. Further, these articles do not provide any measures of uncertainty.
However, even though the inclusion criterion was not fully met for these articles, they were still
included due to their rich description and discussion of relevant concepts, and detailed reviews of
the role of uncertainty in MNCs’ decision-making. Empirical papers that did not present an explicit
definition of uncertainty dimensions and/or its measures were excluded from the review since the
lack of an explicit description of uncertainty measures in an empirical article brings into question
the contribution of the research.
Furthermore, not all articles among the selected 114 elaborate on MNCs’ uncertainty manage-
ment methods. A group of 18 papers (four conceptual, one theoretical, and 13 empirical) did not
provide an explicit examination of uncertainty management methods, but still became part of the
review because they either offered detailed measures of uncertainty dimensions or incorporated
different theoretical perspectives offering diverse views on the impact of uncertainty on MNCs’
decision-making. Finally, this systematic review is not exhaustive in the sense that studies that are
published in book format, in other journals, or in languages other than English were excluded.
A summary of the selection process and exclusion criteria is presented in Table 1.
The selected 114 articles are distributed among the following 23 journals (number of articles per
journal in parentheses): Academy of Management Journal (4), Academy of Management Review (1),
Administrative Science Quarterly (1), British Journal of Management (2), Business Horizons (1),
Columbia Journal of World Business (1), Decision Sciences (1), European Journal of Marketing (3),
International Marketing Review (7), International Business Review (18), International Journal of
Operations and Production Management (1), Journal of Business Research (5), Journal of
International Business Studies (25), Journal of International Management (7), Journal of
Management Studies (5), Journal of Management (2), Journal of Marketing Research (1), Journal
of World Business (13), Long Range Planning (1), Management International Review (5),
Management Science (1), Organizational Science (4), and Strategic Management Journal (5).
2.3. Analysis of selected articles

To maintain consistency with Denyer and Tranfield’s (2009) systematic review practices, analysis
proceeded through three main phases. Owing to the heterogeneity of the selected articles’
theoretical frameworks and empirical methods, the analysis was descriptive in nature. First, the
articles were analyzed in terms of the number and type of uncertainties addressed (i.e., the terms
that were used and defined in the article), to compile a comprehensive list of different uncertain-
ties that receive the most attention. Articles were labeled with as many types of uncertainties as
Page 4 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Table 1. Summary of the article selection process

Method Inclusion/exclusion criteria Number of articles
remaining
Keywords search in Exhaustive list of articles 4861
databases
Reading of article’s title Does the article address the main subject of the 581
review?
The following articles were excluded:
● Technical or engineering articles
● Articles in the area of psychology or

neuroscience
● Articles related to finance/banking
● Articles on mathematical models
Reading of abstract Does the article focus on uncertainty and its 278
impact on MNCs’ international decision-making?
● Articles focusing on uncertainty/risk in terms of
capital budgeting procedures or cost of capital

formulation
● Articles focusing on economic success of
countries
● Articles taking financial institutions as the unit
of analysis
Reading of full paper Does the article offer a detailed description of the 114
uncertainty (or its synonyms) dimension/measure?
Does the article test/investigate/discuss the impact
of uncertainty (or its synonyms) on MNCs’
international decision-making?
Does the article test/investigate/discuss MNCs’
uncertainty management methods?
● Articles mentioning uncertainty (or its syno-
nyms) without defining its dimensions or
measures
● Articles not identifying/discussing/testing
uncertainty management methods
were identified in them. To provide a parsimonious categorization of uncertainty, Miller’s (1992)

classification4 and definition of different types of uncertainty that refers to 13 dimensions of
uncertainty grouped into three main categories was applied (See Figure 1).
The second phase of the analysis focused on identifying how uncertainty management
approaches have been defined in the reviewed articles, and which approaches are most commonly
applied by MNCs. Definitions derived from both Miller (1992) and Simangunsong, Hendry, and
Stevenson (2012) were used to group the identified approaches, which refer to two main methods
of uncertainty management (reducing and coping), under which there are eight uncertainty
management approaches (See Figure 1).
In the final phase of analysis, the identified uncertainty dimensions and uncertainty manage-
ment approaches were analyzed in terms of the capacity to add value to our understanding of
MNCs’ international decision-making (i.e., “how do the identified uncertainty dimensions and
uncertainty management approaches enhance our understanding of MNCs” international decision-
making?’). The review revealed several inconsistencies and debates among IB scholars about the
impact of uncertainties on MNCs’ decision-making and the determinants of MNC choices about
uncertainty management approaches.
Page 5 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Figure 1. Integrative concep- MNC uncertainty management methods

tual framework.
Reducing Coping
Uncertainty
(R1) Information (C1) Flexibility
Environmental uncertainty gathering (C2) Imitation
(U1) Economic uncertainty (R2) Proactive (C3) Reactive
(U2) Political uncertainty collaboration/ collaboration/
(U3) Government uncertainty Cooperation Cooperation
(U4) Cultural uncertainty (R3) Networking (C4) Control
(U5) Discontinuous uncertainty (C5) Avoidance
Industry uncertainty
(U6) Input uncertainty
(U7) Demand uncertainty
(U8) Competition uncertainty
(U9) Technological uncertainty Uncertainty management approaches
of a decision-making team
Firm uncertainty
(U10) Behavioral uncertainty
(U11) R&D uncertainty
(U12) Operating uncertainty
(U13) Previous experience Characteristics of individual decision-
maker
(I1) Previous decision-making experience

(I2) Tolerance for ambiguity
(I3) Individualistic/collectivistic orientation
(I4) Hierarchical position in the organization
(I5) Decision-making orientation
3. Findings
This paper presents an integrated framework (Figure 1) based on classifications of uncertainty
dimensions and approaches to managing uncertainty. The main reason for using an integrated
framework is the inconsistency in existing research regarding how concepts are used (See Table 2).
This has made it problematic to draw conclusions about what we know about the role of uncer-
tainty in MNCs’ decision-making. The framework comprises uncertainty dimensions that have been
modified based on the classification by Miller (1992) and also uncertainty management methods
modified based on the work of Miller (1992) and Simangunsong et al. (2012). The framework was
modified in response to the evidence emerging from the systematic literature review to include
both modified and new types of uncertainty and uncertainty management approaches that were
not anticipated in the original frameworks by Miller (1992) and Simangunsong et al. (2012). The
five characteristics of individual decision-makers that were recognized in the reviewed literature as
either having an impact on individual decision-makers’ perceptions of uncertainty, or on the choice
of uncertainty management approach, are not based on any pre-existing framework but emerged
from this review.
The framework is contingency-based and draws on both contextual and individual influences on
MNCs’ uncertainty management in international decision-making. The contextual part is repre-
sented by different dimensions of uncertainty, both external and internal to the firm, which MNCs
respond to in different ways. The individual influences concern how the characteristics of individual
decision-makers influence both their perceptions of uncertainty and the MNC’s approaches to
uncertainty management. The interlinkages between the different elements of the framework
are discussed in connection with this paper’s proposed research agenda.
3.1. Dimensions of uncertainty

In order to promote greater consistency in the conceptualization of uncertainty dimensions in
future research, this paper adopts Miller’s (1992) classification of uncertainty. This comprises 13
dimensions of uncertainty organized under three different categories of uncertainty:
Page 6 of 32
Table 2. Dimensions and measures of uncertainty in the IB literature
Uncertainty dimensions Terminology used Uncertainty measures used Example literature
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Economic (U1) Economic Country risk measures by Erramilli and Rao (1993), Erramilli & D’Souza, 1995
Uncertainty caused by fluctuations in economic Gatignon and Anderson (1988); high-risk countries
activities: e.g., foreign currency exchange, measures by Goodnow and Hansz (1972)
infrastructure, efficiency of local institutions,

inflation
Institutional uncertainty Subjective measures of institutional voids and Santangelo & Meyer, 2011
institutional uncertainty
Political (U2) Country risk Host country risk assessed from International Gaba et al., 2002
Uncertainty caused by inability to predict Country Risk Guide, Business Environmental Risk
political developments: e.g., war resolution, Intelligence
changes in political turmoil
Environmental uncertainties
Investment uncertainty Subjective measures of investment uncertainty K. D. Brouthers et al., 2008
measured by the stability of the political, social and
economic conditions, the risk of repatriating
income, the risk of government actions against the
firm
Government (U3) Government Subjective measures on government environmental Lewis & Harvey, 2001
Uncertainty caused by inability to predict policy measured by scale on tax policies, laws,
regulatory developments: e.g., reforms, barriers regulations, enforcement of laws
to income repatriation, regulations, level of
corruption
Institutional environment MNCs’ perceptual measure on institutional Chiao et al., 2010
environment measured by turbulence in
government administration, regulations on
domestic sales, export and import requirements,
communication gaps, expatriates’ regulations,
sourcing of raw materials, restrictions on
components’ production, restrictions on ownership,
requirements for technology transfer
Cultural (U4) Cultural Cultural distance measured by a Euclidean distance Slangen & van Tulder, 2009
Uncertainty about collective action when version of Kogut and Singh (1988) index
people are faced with differences between
their own values and values of the institutions
they are part of
Page 7 of 32
(Continued)
Table 2. (Continued)
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Internal uncertainty Cultural distance measures by Kogut and Singh Erramilli & D’Souza, 1995
(1988) based on cultural dimensions by Hofstede
(1980)
Discontinuous (U5) Discontinuous risk Disaster severity measured through no. incidents, Oetzel & Oh, 2014
Uncertainty caused by nature itself, terrorist no. people killed, duration of disaster
attacks, or technological disasters
Environmental issues Subjective measures on environmental issues Lewis & Harvey, 2001
measured by climate change, pollution of air,
water, soil, eco-efficiency, resource depletion,
social welfare, eco-sufficiency
Input (U6) Industry risk Subjective measures on industry risk measured by Liu, Gao, Lu, & Lioliou, 2016
Uncertainty associated with production inputs, availability of inputs, raw materials and
acquisition of adequate quantities and qualities components; prices of inputs, raw materials and
of inputs into production process components; availability of human resources;
availability of financial capital
Structural uncertainty Structural uncertainty measured as geometric Luo, 2003
average of standard deviations in output, sales,
and profit of the industry in which the firm
operates
Demand (U7) Munificence Industry sales measured as average growth in net Keats & Hitt, 1988
Uncertainty that relates to unexpected sales and operating income in the dominant
Industry uncertainties
changes in demand, lack of availability of industry as in Dess and Beard (1984)
complementary products, and presence of
substitute products
Product market Product market growth measured by a geometric Gaba et al., 2002
uncertainty average of growth rates of gross output and the
number of enterprises
Competition (U8) Market turbulence Subjective measures on market turbulence Tseng & Lee, 2010
Unpredictability of the future state of measured by changes in consumers and
competition in the host country market competitors faced by a firm
Dynamism Subjective measures on dynamism measured by Baum & Wally, 2003
perceptions of competitors’ actions
(Continued)
Page 8 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Techno-logical (U9) Technological uncertainty Subjective measures on environmental technology Lewis & Harvey, 2001
Uncertainty about the trade-offs between measured by product environmental attributes
durability benefits vs old technology cost and impact, new products introduction, changes in
production process
Turbulence Technological turbulence assessed by measures on Cadogan et al., 2003
competitive intensity, threats and opportunities
from changes in firm’s technological environment
by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) and Cadogan, Paul,
Salminen, Puumalainen, and Sundqvist (2001)
Behavioral (U10) Behavioral Subjective measures on the behavior of Lewis & Harvey, 2001
Inability to predict the actions and plans of environmental stakeholders measured by scale on
potential partners or members within the firm investors, community, supply chain, industry,
opinion formers, regulators
Control uncertainty Subjective measures of control uncertainty from Brouthers et al., 2008
Brouthers and Brouthers (2003) measured by the
cost of marketing and enforcing contracts,
uncertainty over maintaining quality standards,
the risk of dissemination of proprietary knowledge
R&D (U11) Corporation sources Not provided (conceptual paper) Haley, 2003
Unpredictability of R&D results
Firm uncertainties
Venture-level uncertainty Return on investment is measured by VentureXpert Liu & Maula, 2016
database classification—start-up, early stage,
expansion, later stage
Operating (U12) Operation risk Not provided (conceptual paper) Miller, 1992
Uncertainty about operation of the firm and
employees’ productivity
Total strategic Subjective measures on total risk measured by Brouthers, 1995
international risk averaging results of perceptions of control and
market complexity risks
(Continued)
Page 9 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Previous experience (U13) Previous experience Subjective measure on international experience Chiao et al., 2010
Firms’ previous operating experience that has measured by the ratio of foreign sales to total
an impact on a host country risk perception sales, the ratio of foreign assets to total assets, the
and management approaches ratio of foreign fixed assets to total fixed assets,
the ratio of foreign employees to total employees
and analyzed by exploratory factor analysis
Operational uncertainty Operational uncertainty assessed as no. Rhee & Cheng, 2002
international operational modes a firm had
undertaken prior to its entry into a foreign country;
no. years a firm had been involved in international
operations
Page 10 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Figure 2. Number of articles on 39

40
researched dimensions of 33
uncertainty. 35 30
30 27
25 24
25 21
20 17 16 16
15 14
15 10
8 8 9
10 76 6
34 3 34 4
2
5
0
Environmental unceratinty Industry uncertainty Firm uncertainty

Strategic decisions Operational decisions
environmental, industry, and firm uncertainties. Miller’s (1992) framework was chosen because it is
exhaustive and highly cited in IB research (e.g., Ahsan & Musteen, 2011; Clark, Li, & Shepherd,
2017; Erramilli & D’Souza, 1995; Oetzel & Oh, 2014). One potential drawback is that it was not
based on a systematic review of the literature, nor has it been empirically examined in its complete
original form. Nonetheless, this paper takes Miller’s (1992) classification as a starting point and
builds on it as follows: First, a closer examination of the IB literature resulted in an extension of the
industry category of uncertainties by one dimension (i.e., technological). Second, the firm category
of uncertainties was modified (i.e., removing liability and credit dimensions of uncertainty and
adding previous experience), the social and product dimensions of uncertainty were relabeled
cultural and demand uncertainties, and the natural dimension of uncertainty was relabeled
discontinuous uncertainty. The 13 dimensions of uncertainty identified in the literature review
illustrate the multifaceted and complex nature of uncertainty in IB. However, inconsistent use
and measurement of the concepts made drawing conclusions on the existing knowledge of the
role of uncertainty problematic. Although most scholars agree that MNCs employ different uncer-
tainty management approaches in their decision-making, what is meant by uncertainty and how it
is measured differs from study to study. Table 2 presents the most significant differences in
conceptualization and measurement among the reviewed studies: studies are using different
concepts of uncertainty for capturing the same dimension of uncertainty, studies use the same
name of concepts for different uncertainties across categories, and studies are using different
measures for the same dimension of uncertainty.
One of the main objectives of this paper was to systematically review the treatment of uncer-
tainty in decision-making in the IB literature. Figure 2 illustrates that uncertainties in the environ-
mental uncertainty category have attracted the greatest research attention both in regard to MNC
strategic and operational decision-making. In particular, studies have examined environmental
uncertainty in terms of political (U2) (e.g., Agarwal & Ramaswami, 1992; Delios & Henisz, 2003a;
Kobrin, 1979), economic (U1) (e.g., Brouthers & Dikova, 2010; Prater, Biehl, & Smith, 2001; Song,
2015) and government (U3) (Akhter & Robles, 2006; Chiao, Lo, & Yu, 2010; Eroglu, 1992) uncer-
tainties in the host country, and thus focus on the formal part of a country’s environment. Other
studies examine environmental uncertainty in terms of cultural uncertainty (U4) (e.g., Cho &
Page 11 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Padmanabhan, 2005; Dow, Cuypers, & Ertug, 2016) that emerges between the home and host
countries, and therefore focus on the informal part of the country’s environment.
Several other studies have directed attention on to the impact of industry uncertainties. For
example, Elango and Sambharya (2004) found that competition and demand uncertainties have
a significant impact on MNCs’ entry mode decisions. Gray (1994) places more focus on technolo-
gical uncertainty in MNCs’ entry mode decisions. Among the different dimensions of uncertainty in
the firm uncertainty category, the MNC’s previous experience has attracted the greatest research
attention and is broadly recognized as having an impact on an MNCs’ identification and perception
of various other dimensions of uncertainties (Brouthers, 1995), entry mode choice decisions
(Brouthers, Brouthers, & Werner, 2008), or location decisions (Delios & Henisz, 2003b).
Although IB scholars acknowledge the existence of different categories of uncertainty,

studies investigating the impact of uncertainty dimensions within one category (e.g., that of
the environment or industry uncertainty) dominate in the IB field. Among the 114 reviewed
studies, 32 investigate the impact of environmental dimensions of uncertainty (with 18 studies
—on operational decisions, seven studies on entry mode, four studies on location decisions,
two studies on divestment, and one study on an international joint venture ownership deci-
sion), and 14 studies investigate the impact of industry dimensions of uncertainty (with nine
studies on operational decisions, three studies on entry mode, one study on location, and one
study on decision speed). There is a gradual move toward the integration of uncertainties from
different categories: 20 studies investigate the simultaneous impact of both environmental and
industry dimensions of uncertainty. Nevertheless, empirical research on different categories of
uncertainty has generally taken place across studies rather than within single studies. Articles
that do consider the impact of two or all three categories of uncertainties are mostly con-
ceptual. Table 3 summarizes IB studies based on the number of uncertainty categories studied
per article.
3.2. Uncertainty management

Turning to the approaches MNCs apply when managing uncertainty, Miller’s (1992) and
Simangunsong et al.’s (2012) uncertainty management frameworks were used as a starting
point5. More specifically, this review incorporates Simangunsong et al.’s (2012) two uncertainty
management methods: uncertainty reduction (referred to as “financial risk” management by
Miller), and uncertainty coping (referred to as “strategic management” by Miller). Uncertainty
reduction minimizes an MNC’s exposure to particular uncertainties without changing the firm’s
strategy (Miller, 1992). Uncertainty reduction is a natural, primary motivator and fundamental
need that guides MNCs’ behavior (Beckman, Haunschild, & Phillips, 2004; Mullin & Hogg, 1998).
Uncertainty coping, on the other hand, impacts the MNC’s exposure across a wide range of
uncertainties and in some cases requires the MNC to change its strategy (Miller, 1992). Although
the two concepts are the same in both frameworks, this paper adopts Simangunsong et al.’s
(2012) terminology since the reviewed IB literature most often refers to uncertainty manage-
ment in terms of reduction and coping rather than financial and strategic risk management.
Table 4 presents the extant literature against the two methods of uncertainty management:
three approaches to reduction, and five approaches to coping.
3.3. Uncertainty reduction

The review of the selected articles facilitated the identification of three approaches to uncertainty
reduction: information gathering (R1), proactive collaboration/cooperation (R2), and networking
(R3). Information gathering (R1) and networking (R3) emerged solely from the reviewed literature
and are not mentioned in either of the two frameworks. Collaboration (R2) emerged from the
literature review and is also listed among Simangunsong et al.’s (2012) approaches to uncertainty
reduction. Since the reviewed literature uses the terms collaboration and cooperation interchange-
ably, this paper integrates them.
Page 12 of 32
Table 3. Uncertainty categories and frequency in the reviewed articles
MNC decision type Article type Number of studies Uncertainty categories considered per study
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Environmental Industry uncertainties Firm uncertainties

uncertainties
Operational Empirical 18
Example literature: Desbordes, 2007; Gaur et al., 2007; Jiménez, 2010; Jiménez, Benito-Osorio, Puck, & Klopf, 2017; Jiménez & Delgado-Garciá, 2012;
Jiménez, Luis-Rico, & Benito-Osorio, 2014; Keillor, Wilkinson, & Owens, 2005; Kelly & Philippatos, 1982; Kennedy, 1984
Example literature: Celly, Spekman, & Kamauff, 1999; Chattopadhyay, Glick, & Huber, 2001; Chen & Kamal, 2016; Cui, Griffith, Cavusgil, & Dabic, 2006;
Hodgkinson et al., 2016; Keats & Hitt, 1988; Lee & Makhija, 2009a; Liu et al., 2012
Example literature: Achrol & Stern, 1988; Gaba et al., 2002; Galang, 2012; Griffith, Harmancioglu, & Droge, 2009; Grunert et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2016; Luo,
2003; Manolis, Nygaard, & Stillerud, 1997; Mascarenhas, 1982
Example literature: Beckman et al., 2004; Ottesen & Grønhaug, 2004; Sartor & Beamish, 2014
Example literature: Xu et al., 2004
Operational Conceptual/ 4
Theoretical
Example literature: Akhter & Choudhry, 1993; Di Gregorio, 2005; Spich & Grosse, 2005
Operational Conceptual 3
Example literature: Haley, 2003; Miller, 1992; Sashi & Karuppur, 2002
Entry mode Empirical 7
Example literature: Dow et al., 2016; Erramilli & D’Souza, 1995; Hong & Lee, 2015; López-Duarte & Vidal-Suárez, 2010; Malhotra, Lin, & Farrell, 2016; Slangen
& van Tulder, 2009; Williams, Lukoianova, & Martinez, 2017
Example literature: Cadogan et al., 2003; Elango & Sambharya, 2004; J. Li & Li, 2010
(Continued)
Page 13 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692

uncertainties
Example literature: L. E. Brouthers, Brouthers, & Werner, 2000; K. D. Brouthers, Brouthers, & Werner, 2002; Campa, 1994; Dickson & Weaver, 1997; Gray,
1994; Luo, 2001; Morschett et al., 2010; Sanchez-Peinado & Pla-Barber, 2006
Example literature: Brouthers, 1995; Brouthers et al., 2008; Brouthers & Dikova, 2010; Chiao et al., 2010; Li & Rugman, 2007; Whitelock & Jobber, 2004;
Zafar, Mohamad, Tan, & Johnson, 2002
Example literature: Agarwal & Ramaswami, 1992; Brouthers & Brouthers, 2003; Cho & Padmanabhan, 2005; Delios & Henisz, 2003a; Henisz & Delios, 2001; Ji
& Dimitratos, 2013
Example literature: Sutcliffe & Zaheer, 1998
Entry mode Conceptual 2
Example literature: Akhter & Robles, 2006; Eroglu, 1992
Location Empirical 4
Example literature: Arregle, Miller, Hitt, & Beamish, 2016; Duanmu, 2012; Kraus, Ambos, Eggers, & Cesinger, 2015; Oetzel & Oh, 2014
Example literature: Dowell & Killaly, 2009
Example literature: Delios & Henisz, 2003b; Lien & Filatotchev, 2015
Location Conceptual 1
Example literature: Burgers & Padgett, 2009
Location Conceptual 1
Example literature: Siqueira, Priem, & Parente, 2015
Divestment Empirical 2
Example literature: Berry, 2013; Song, 2014
(Continued)
Page 14 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692

uncertainties
Decision speed Empirical 1

Example literature: Baum & Wally, 2003
Decision speed Empirical 1
Example literature: Rhee & Cheng, 2002
IJV ownership Empirical 1
Example literature: Piaskowska & Trojanowski, 2014
Example literature: Cuypers & Martin, 2010; Liu & Maula, 2016
Example literature: Mayrhofer, 2004; Tsang, 2005
Page 15 of 32
Table 4. Approaches to uncertainty management in the IB literature
Uncertainty management approaches Description Example literature
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
(R1) Information gathering Complete uncertainty reduction: gathering information Grunert et al., 2010; Ji & Dimitratos, 2013; Keats & Hitt,
until the decision-making point where analytic 1988; Ottesen & Grønhaug, 2004; Petersen et al., 2008
comprehensiveness of the environment is achieved.
(R2) Proactive collaboration/cooperation Collaboration with local subsidiaries to reduce Brouthers et al., 2008; Slangen & van Tulder, 2009
uncertainties related to the general environment, industry
and firm.
(R3) Networking Generation of information about a firm’s market through Beckman et al., 2004; Luo, 2003
establishing new or reinforcing already existing networks,
the dissemination of this information to relevant decision-
makers, and development and implementation of
responses.
Uncertainty Reduction
(C1) Flexibility Organizational ability to adapt to uncertain and fast- Chattopadhyay et al., 2001; Chiao et al., 2010; Lee &
changing environmental conditions: Makhija, 2009a; Lee & Makhija, 2009b; Li & Li, 2010; Liu
- Diversification of geographic markets or products, et al., 2012; Sanchez-Peinado & Pla-Barber, 2006; Sashi &
-Operational adaptation. Karuppur, 2002
(C2) Imitation Imitation of rival organizations’ strategies and actions. Gaba et al., 2002; Miller, 1992
(C3) Reactive collaboration/cooperation Multilateral agreements that are used to increase the Akhter & Robles, 2006; Brouthers, 1995; Brouthers &
predictability of environmental conditions: Brouthers, 2003; Brouthers et al., 2008; Burgers & Padgett,
-JV or Alliances, 2009; Cuypers & Martin, 2010; Dickson & Weaver, 1997;
-Franchising/Licensing, Eroglu, 1992; Erramilli & D’Souza, 1995; Miller, 1992;
-Agreements. Sutcliffe & Zaheer, 1998
(C4) Control Market control to threaten and push competitors into Akhter & Robles, 2006; Baum & Wally, 2003; Brouthers
Uncertainty Coping
more predictable behavior et al., 2002; Brouthers & Brouthers, 2003; Brouthers et al.,
Unilateral control of operations: 2008; Brouthers & Dikova, 2010; Burgers & Padgett, 2009;
-Vertical integration, Mayrhofer, 2004; Morschett et al., 2010; Sanchez-Peinado
-Horizontal integration, & Pla-Barber, 2006; Tseng & Lee, 2010
-Market Control (includes the speed of the decision).
(C5) Avoidance Postponement of the company’s actions until uncertainty Dowell & Killaly, 2009; Whitelock & Jobber, 2004
level faced by the company is acceptable.
Page 16 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Information gathering (R1) as an uncertainty reduction approach is used by MNCs that avoid
risky decisions and act when the gathered information is considered enough to achieve analytical
comprehensiveness of the environment (e.g., Brouthers et al., 2008; Ji & Dimitratos, 2013). Studies
reveal that information gathering is an approach to uncertainty reduction where the MNCs scan
the external environments and collect necessary data without the involvement of other partners.
Information gathering is the most frequently implemented approach adopted to reduce uncer-
tainty and is primarily used to minimize demand, competition, and cultural uncertainties (e.g.,
Cadogan, Cui, & Li, 2003; Grunert, Trondsen, Campos, & Young, 2010; Keats & Hitt, 1988; Petersen,
Pedersen, & Lyles, 2008; Rhee & Cheng, 2002).
Proactive collaboration/cooperation (R2) is another way to increase the predictability of the

conditions in the external environment. Information sharing is an essential part of collaboration/
cooperation (Simangunsong et al., 2012). The IB literature talks about collaboration/cooperation in
the form of vertical integration and contractual agreements that MNCs have with their local
partners for collaborative planning and forecasting to reduce external uncertainties (Brouthers
et al., 2008; Slangen & van Tulder, 2009). The literature suggests that environmental uncertainties
and the dimensions of industry uncertainties such as demand and competition can be reduced
through collaboration/cooperation with local partners (Brouthers et al., 2008; Slangen & van
Tulder, 2009).
Uncertainty can be reduced through networking (R3). As IB studies reveal, uncertainty reduction
through networking (R3) happens when the MNC collects data through its social relationships and
via the reinforcement of existing networks (Luo, 2003; Ottesen & Grønhaug, 2004). As such,
proactive collaboration/cooperation (R2) can be a part of networking (R3) and happens within
larger networks (Ottesen & Grønhaug, 2004). In the IB literature, networking is primarily used to
reduce industry uncertainties: input, demand and competition (e.g., Beckman et al., 2004; Luo,
2003).
3.4. Uncertainty coping

The reviewed IB literature identifies five approaches that are consistent with Miller’s five
approaches to coping with uncertainty. These approaches are: flexibility (C1), imitation (C2),
reactive collaboration/cooperation (C3), control (C4) and avoidance (C5). Of these, flexibility6 (C1),
collaboration/cooperation7 (C3) and avoidance8 (C5) are also among the approaches noted by
Simangunsong et al. (2012).
Flexibility (C1) is exhibited as diversification and operational adaptation. Diversification helps the
MNC cope with industry uncertainties through its involvement in different markets or diversifica-
tion of its products (e.g., Chiao et al., 2010; Liu, Shah, & Babakus, 2012). Operational adaptation is
sought through adaptation of organizational structure or strategy. As an example, under high
internal uncertainty some MNCs shift from FDI to non-equity modes (Lee & Makhija, 2009a).
To cope with uncertainty some MNCs choose imitation (C2). By mimicking a rival’s strategy, MNCs
assume that the rival’s actions incorporate learning that will help to avoid the errors of early
movers (Gaba, Pan, & Ungson, 2002). However, an industry leader would be able to predict the
response of competitors due to their responses being mere imitations of its own strategic actions
(Miller, 1992). In the context of international decision-making, political, government, cultural,
demand, and competition uncertainties can be managed through the imitation of competitors’
actions (e.g., Gaba et al., 2002).
The reviewed literature revealed that reactive collaboration/cooperation (C3) is the most com-
mon approach taken to cope with environmental and industry uncertainties (e.g., Brouthers, 1995;
Brouthers & Brouthers, 2003; Dickson & Weaver, 1997; López-Duarte & Vidal-Suárez, 2010;
Morschett, Schramm-Klein, & Swoboda, 2010; Tseng & Lee, 2010). As environmental and industry
uncertainties increase, MNCs tend to select strategies that shift the uncertainty and risk to their
Page 17 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
partners (Brouthers, 1995). However, collaboration/cooperation becomes less valuable in the pre-
sence of high growth potential (J. Li & Li, 2010).
MNCs may choose unilaterally to control (C4) uncertainty rather than to passively accept its
conditions. Control entry modes are frequently observed among knowledge-intensive MNCs
(Sanchez-Peinado & Pla-Barber, 2006). Vertical integration with suppliers is used as an attempt
to control input and demand uncertainties (e.g., Akhter & Robles, 2006). Horizontal integration
(e.g., mergers and acquisitions) is used to control uncertainties related to competition, particularly
during the transformation stage of an economy where an MNC operates (Burgers & Padgett, 2009;
Mayrhofer, 2004).
Uncertainty avoidance (C5) takes place when the level of both environmental and industry
uncertainties faced by the MNC is unacceptable. MNCs postpone their action as a means of
complete uncertainty avoidance until the value of an investment opportunity can be accurately
predicted (e.g., Dowell & Killaly, 2009; Whitelock & Jobber, 2004).
3.5. Determinants of the choice of uncertainty management approach

The reviewed literature revealed that the following two factors influence the MNC’s choice of
a particular uncertainty management approach: the theoretical background of the research and
the specific decision-makers within the MNC. Regarding the theoretical background of the
research, studies that apply, for example, a real option theory perspective report the use of the
reactive collaboration/cooperation (C3) approach to uncertainty management (e.g., Brouthers
et al., 2008; Cuypers & Martin, 2010; Li & Li, 2010). This theory encourages MNCs to consider
environmental uncertainty since it is not only a challenge for decision-making, but offers an
opportunity in the long-term (e.g., Li & Li, 2010). Studies applying a transaction cost perspective,
in contrast, report the use of control (C4) (e.g., Akhter & Robles, 2006; Tseng & Lee, 2010), while
studies applying an internationalization perspective report the incremental use of both information
gathering (R1) (e.g., Petersen et al., 2008; Rhee & Cheng, 2002;) and reactive collaboration/
cooperation (C3) approaches to uncertainty management (e.g., Sanchez-Peinado & Pla-Barber,
2006).
Second, among the 114 reviewed articles, 22 place a strong emphasis on individual decision-
makers as the determiners of the uncertainty management approaches used by an MNC, particu-
larly in situations where MNC behavior deviates from that predicted by theoretical models (e.g., in
the studies by Gray, 1994,; Richards & Yang, 2007). Therefore, this paper scrutinizes individual
decision-makers and their characteristics to understand their impact on their MNC’s choice of
uncertainty management approach.
The systematic review regarding individual-level characteristics of decision-makers was

approached inductively (i.e., no underlying classification was used). Hence, the following charac-
teristics emerged from the review: previous decision-making experience (I1), tolerance of ambi-
guity (I2), individualistic/collectivistic orientation (I3), hierarchical position in the organization (I4),
decision-making orientation (I5) (See Table 5).
Previous decision-making experience (I1), or lack of it, can have a significant impact on uncer-
tainty perception and the desire for control (e.g., Makhija & Stewart, 2002; Whitelock & Jobber,
2004). More specifically, the less managerial experience a manager had, the higher the level of
perceived uncertainty and the greater the chance that a third party would be involved in the
control of foreign operations (Brouthers, 1995).
The reviewed literature identifies two of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions that have been
applied at the individual level to illustrate how the characteristics of individual decision-makers
shape their perceptions of uncertainty: uncertainty avoidance—more frequently referred to in
the literature on international decision-making as tolerance for ambiguity (I2)—and
Page 18 of 32
Table 5. Characteristics of individual decision-makers and their influence on approaches to uncertainty management in the IB literature
Characteristics of individual Terminology used Effect on decision-making Example literature
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
decision-makers
I1 Previous decision-making experience Previous experience Lack of previous decision-making Brouthers, 1995; Makhija & Stewart, 2002;
experience leads to a higher level of Reid, 1981; Whitelock & Jobber, 2004
perceived uncertainty and therefore more

Operating experience Eroglu, 1992
collaborative uncertainty management
approaches
I2 Tolerance for ambiguity Cognitive complexity Decision-makers with higher tolerance for Yasai-Ardekani, 1986
ambiguity have more accurate perceptions
Education, knowledge of foreign Reid, 1981
of the environment. Thus, they reduce
languages, extent of foreign travel
uncertainty by gathering extra information
Tolerance for ambiguity and performing environmental scanning Eroglu, 1992; Grunert et al., 2010; Makhija
activities & Stewart, 2002
I3 Individualistic/collectivistic orientation Cultural orientation: individualistic vs Managers with individualistic orientation Dickson & Weaver, 1997; Makhija &
collectivistic tendencies are more restrained towards alliances in Stewart, 2002
the foreign markets. Managers with more
Tolerance for risk Eroglu, 1992
collectivistic orientation value cooperative
uncertainty management
I4 Hierarchical position in the organization Organizational positions Managers in higher hierarchical positions Yasai-Ardekani, 1986
have a better access to environmental
scanning and information processing than
managers in lower hierarchical positions.
Therefore, information gathering and
reduction of uncertainty becomes easier
for the managers in higher positions.
I5 Decision-making orientation Decision-making orientation Managers with more entrepreneurial Makhija & Stewart, 2002; Petersen et al.,
orientation are higher risk takers than 2008; Reid, 1981
managers with conservative environmental
Entrepreneurial vs conservative orientation Dickson & Weaver, 1997
orientation
International orientation: perceived risk vs Eroglu, 1992
perceived benefit
Page 19 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
individualistic/collectivistic orientation (I3). Tolerance for ambiguity (I2) refers to the tendency of
certain decision-makers to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable (Eroglu, 1992). A clear
distinction is that individuals with a low tolerance for ambiguity tend to cease their information
processing activities early and are resistant to new information. Individuals that are more
tolerant of ambiguity are more receptive to external information (Makhija & Stewart, 2002;
Yasai-Ardekani, 1986). In IB studies, decision-makers with a low tolerance for ambiguity commit
resources to foreign markets only if environmental and industry uncertainties are reduced to
a level beneath the maximum tolerable risk. However, it remains unclear how ambiguity-averse
decision-makers behave if the perceived environmental and industry uncertainties increase with
time (Petersen et al., 2008). According to the maximum tolerable risk logic, the solution is to
withdraw from the foreign market (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977). However, there is a need for
more empirical research to understand the actual behavior of individual decision-makers with
different levels of tolerance for ambiguity.
The individualistic/collectivistic orientation (I3) of managers is shown to influence their percep-

tions of the uncertainties facing the MNC. Managers with an individualistic orientation value
independence and self-sufficiency, and place high value on self-direction, social justice, and
equality (Dickson & Weaver, 1997). In practice, these managers are less influenced by perceived
environmental uncertainty and more restrained toward alliances in foreign markets (Dickson &
Weaver, 1997). Managers with collectivist orientations emphasize the importance of belonging to
a group, of value cooperation within a group, and expect help from the group. These managers are
more positive toward alliances and are more influenced by perceived environmental uncertainty
(Dickson & Weaver, 1997; Makhija & Stewart, 2002).
Hierarchical position in the organization (I4), which includes organizational roles, experiences,
beliefs and ideologies, is shown to affect uncertainty perceptions (Yasai-Ardekani, 1986). The
general argument is that organizational structure affects environmental scanning and information
processing, including information access, interpretation, and transmission. Managers in higher
hierarchical positions have better access to environmental scanning and information processing
than managers in lower hierarchical positions. Therefore, information gathering, and the reduction
of uncertainty becomes easier for managers in higher positions. Furthermore, an individual’s
hierarchical position influences the perception of the external environment (Sonnenfeld, 1981as
in Yasai-Ardekani, 1986).
The frame of mind in which decision-makers process information is referred to as decision-

making orientation (I5) (Makhija & Stewart, 2002). There is a significant difference in how decision-
makers with an entrepreneurial and innovative decision-making orientation and decision-makers
with a more conservative decision-making orientation react to environmental uncertainties
(Dickson & Weaver, 1997). Decision-makers with a more entrepreneurial orientation are character-
ized by greater risk taking and are less likely to perceive the situation as threatening (Hodgkinson,
Hughes, & Arshad, 2016). The international entrepreneurship literature assumes that decision-
makers are risk takers who focus on foreign market opportunities rather than risks. Accordingly,
proactive and risk-seeking decision-makers translate risk into unknown, but promising, future
business opportunities (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Petersen et al., 2008).
4. Toward a future research agenda

Based on this systematic literature review, it is possible to make three observations about the main
limitations of existing research in the IB field. These limitations are: (i) inconsistency in the
conceptualization and measurement of uncertainty, (ii) lack of diversity regarding uncertainty
dimensions within single studies, and (iii) the downplayed role of individual decision-makers.
After briefly explaining each of these limitations in turn, and why they are problematic for knowl-
edge development, the paper offers some specific suggestions for how future research could
address them. These suggestions for future research are represented as dotted lines in Figure 1.
Page 20 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
4.1. Toward more consistent choices in the conceptualization and measurement of

uncertainty
The first limitation observed is the inconsistency in the conceptualization and measurement of
uncertainty, which has been the subject of much debate among scholars. The kind of conceptual
inconsistencies where articles use the same concept to capture different dimensions of uncertainty
across categories (see Table 2) could partly explain these debates. Studies compare the relative
impact of different dimensions of uncertainty on MNC decision-making and draw different conclu-
sions. A number of studies identify environmental factors as having the most significant impact on
MNCs’ choice of entry mode (e.g., Agarwal & Ramaswami, 1992; Brouthers & Brouthers, 2003;
Brouthers et al., 2008; Eroglu, 1992; Erramilli & D’Souza, 1995; Ji & Dimitratos, 2013), while others
suggest industry factors have the greatest impact on constraining those decisions (Cadogan et al.,
2003; Elango & Sambharya, 2004; Li & Li, 2010; Sutcliffe & Zaheer, 1998). Furthermore, similar
inconsistencies are observed within categories of uncertainty when different concepts are used to
capture the same dimension of uncertainty. In terms of environmental uncertainties, contradic-
tions around political and cultural uncertainties are the most common. Political uncertainty is
recognized to have a significant impact on MNCs’ internationalization (e.g., Henisz & Delios, 2001;
Jiménez, 2010), market selection (e.g., Duanmu, 2012; Henisz & Delios, 2001) and/or divestment
decisions (e.g., Berry, 2013). While political uncertainty is the most researched uncertainty in the IB
literature, Slangen and van Tulder’s (2009) research shows that studies that have conceptualized
environmental uncertainty in terms of political uncertainty, have focused on a relatively unim-
portant aspect of a country’s formal institutional environment, and go on to conclude that
governmental uncertainty may be a better proxy for environmental uncertainty. Similar debates
have been observed around cultural uncertainty: Cho and Padmanabhan (2005) illustrate the
importance of cultural uncertainty in determining the ownership type involved in MNCs’ entry
mode decisions, while other studies (e.g., Luo, 2001; Slangen & van Tulder, 2009) indicate cultural
uncertainty is a less relevant driver of MNC decision-making or even irrelevant to it.
Inconsistencies in the way uncertainty is measured can also partly be seen as contributing to
these conflicting findings. For example, the finding by Slangen and van Tulder (2009) on govern-
ment uncertainty being a better proxy for external environment uncertainty than political uncer-
tainty can be explained through the integration of different measures for similar dimensions of
uncertainty. The study uses Kaufmann et al.’s (2004) measures for political uncertainty as
a sudden regime change. Decision-makers may pay relatively little attention to this likelihood
while making, for example, entry mode decisions. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that most of the
reviewed studies looked at MNC assessments of political uncertainty, they still measure political
instability rather than the potential impact of politics on the firm (cf. Delios & Henisz, 2003a,
2003b; Henisz & Delios, 2001; Kobrin, 1979). Another example, the study by Gaur, Delios, and Singh
(2007) revealed that MNCs rely more on expatriates in situations marked by high levels of
governmental and political uncertainty. The study by Xu, Pan, and Beamish (2004) found the
opposite: greater government and political uncertainty is associated with a lower level of equity
ownership and a lower expatriate presence. However, a deeper analysis of these studies revealed
that Gaur et al. (2007) measure governmental and political uncertainties through governmental
and political indices of the host country, while Xu et al. (2004) focus more on demand forecasts of
the host country and a firm’s operational effectiveness. In terms of the measures of cultural
uncertainty, linguistic and religious distances have a greater impact on MNCs’ behavior than
more traditional measurements of cultural uncertainty (Dow et al., 2016). Cultural distance has
been criticized as being a less relevant driver of managerial decision-making than perceptions
regarding the host market’s environment (Xu & Shenkar, 2002).
In sum, inconsistencies in the conceptualization and measurement of uncertainty are proble-

matic because they fragment our knowledge of the field and, most significantly, impede the
development of our accumulative knowledge about uncertainty and its effects. Those inconsisten-
cies have inhibited our understanding about what uncertainties MNCs actually prioritize when
making international decisions, and has impeded our understanding of how an MNC prioritizes
Page 21 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
the uncertainties it recognizes and how that affects its decisions. The same inconsistencies prevent
us accurately evaluating the contextual environment within which MNCs operate and within which
decisions are made (Di Gregorio, 2005). Furthermore, the diverse ways in which different uncer-
tainties are conceptualized and measured presents a threat to the validity of empirical studies, and
ultimately to theory development (Delios & Henisz, 2003a).
In light of these limitations, two main recommendations for future research are offered. First,
future research should choose dimensions of uncertainty that are more conceptually and statis-
tically parsimonious in order to prevent further confusion. Miller (1993) and Werner, Brouthers, and
Brouthers (1996), for instance, recommend choosing uncertainty concepts that are inter-related
and consistent with previous studies on uncertainty. They offer dimensions of uncertainty that are
theoretically justified and exhibit construct and discriminant validity. Therefore, this paper recom-
mends integrating similar types of uncertainty constructs into future research to achieve more
comprehensive measures. To address these methodological issues, future research questions
might include: “What is the nature of the relationship between different dimensions of uncertainty
at the conceptual level, and which constructs should be included in future efforts at scale devel-
opment? To what extent is the grouping of different constructs of uncertainty generalizable across
industries and countries, or do they interact in different ways?”
Second, since most of today’s uncertainty measures are objective and taken from country
reports (84 quantitative studies out of the total 114 articles reviewed use statistical indices of
the countries to measure MNC’s uncertainties), our understanding of MNC decision-making tends
not to be based on the subjective reality of the uncertainties faced by the actual decision-makers.
This is problematic, since this fails to acknowledge that people and teams make decisions, not the
organization, and thus ignores a potentially wide and powerful range of explanations behind MNC
decision-making that could complement existing theories and models. As studies have shown,
some individual decision-makers might perceive specific uncertainties differently than the rest of
the MNC management, or not acknowledge them at all (Kiss, Williams, & Houghton, 2013).
Therefore, more studies that integrate subjective measures of uncertainty are needed in order to
understand how decision-makers within MNCs actually differentiate between, and respond to,
different dimensions of uncertainty. Subjective measurements of uncertainty are more likely to
provide findings that are representative of what individual decision-makers actually experience
(e.g., as in Petersen et al., 2008 or Whitelock & Jobber, 2004).
In a recent study, Haley found over 80 percent of MNC managers used qualitative personal
judgments to assess uncertainty, while fewer than 20 per cent used statistical techniques (2003).
Therefore, the integration of more subjective measures of uncertainty could provide a more
realistic account of how MNCs perceive and prioritize different uncertainties. Future research
questions could thus address the following kinds of questions: How much heterogeneity exists in
the subjective perception of different kinds of uncertainty between MNC decision-makers? To what
extent does this heterogeneity provide grounds for aggregation at the MNC level? How does
heterogeneity and homogeneity in uncertainty perceptions influence decision-making? By inte-
grating dimensions of uncertainty that are more conceptually and statistically parsimonious, and
through the use of more subjective measures, it is possible to improve the predictive power of
different theoretical models of MNC behavior under conditions of uncertainty.
4.2. Addressing the lack of diversity in uncertainty dimensions included within single studies
The second limitation in existing IB research is that studies tend to focus on uncertainties solely
within one category (i.e., environmental or industry category) and largely overlook firm-level
dimensions of uncertainty. As the reviewed literature revealed, environmental and industry uncer-
tainties can be managed through different approaches. These interlinkages are shown as two solid
arrows from environmental and industry uncertainties to uncertainty management methods in
Figure 1. A dotted arrow that connects firm uncertainties and uncertainty management
approaches denotes that more research is needed. Although there has been a move toward
Page 22 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
integrating uncertainties from different categories (e.g., Beckman et al., 2004; Brouthers et al.,
2008; Galang, 2012; Henisz & Delios, 2001; Liu & Maula, 2016), the vast majority of studies examine
uncertainties in parallel rather than together within the same study (see Table 3). This is a major
shortcoming since a focus on only one uncertainty, such as political uncertainty, can lead to ill-
informed entry mode decisions if other uncertainties are ignored (e.g., Brouthers, 1995). Empirical
studies have found significant relationships between one or more uncertainty dimensions and MNC
entry mode choice (Ahmed, Mohamad, Tan, & Johnson, 2002). However, the interlinkages between
different categories of uncertainty and their effects on uncertainty management and decision-
making remain largely unexplored in IB research.
In particular, uncertainties at the firm level are under-explored in IB studies compared to

environmental and industry dimensions of uncertainty (See Figure 2). This is problematic since,
according to the strategy tripod model (Peng, Wang, & Jiang, 2008), strategic decisions by MNCs
are influenced by environmental, industry, and firm-specific factors, and thus uncertainties in all
three categories should be considered equally. Within the IB field, location and entry mode
decisions are the strategic decision-making activities that have received by far the most research
attention. However, this systematic literature review reveals that the studies that examine these
decisions primarily investigate the impact of either environmental or industry uncertainties and
largely downplay the role of firm uncertainties (See Table 3). A similar pattern is evident when
examining research on the operational decisions of MNCs; firm dimensions of uncertainty are
usually overlooked.
Not including a wider spectrum of uncertainties within single studies prevents us from under-
standing the relationships between them and only presents with partial explanations for MNC
decision-making. Including several dimensions not only helps to address this, but also provides
a picture that is closer to the empirical reality that decision-makers within MNCs have to confront.
One such example is that IB research appears to be more concerned with environmental or
industry uncertainties, while MNCs are reported to be more focused on resolving firm uncertainties
in the course of international decision-making. As Buckley, Devinney, and Louviere (2007)
observed, MNCs planning international activities tend to follow theoretically predictive paths.
However, the actual implementation of these activities is less aligned with traditional models. As
the authors explain, decision-makers pay more attention to firm-related uncertainties (e.g., ROI,
production cost, exploitation and protection of assets) when they implement decisions, and less to
environmental uncertainty (e.g., political instability), which tends to be a factor considered more
during the planning stage. By considering firm dimensions of uncertainty along with environmental
and industry uncertainties, international decision-making models will not only acquire an
enhanced ability to explain the kind of MNC behavioral variation that is observed, but will also
open opportunities to examine the interactions between the different types of uncertainty alluded
to above.
In terms of future research, due to the complex business environments in which MNCs operate,
the trade-off among different dimensions of uncertainty and understanding their contextual effect
on decision-making remains crucial within the field of IB. However, it is important to understand
not only how one category of uncertainty is managed, but how the simultaneous impact of
multiple uncertainties from different categories influences how MNC operations are and should
be managed. Accordingly, future research should address the following kinds of research ques-
tions: “On what dimensions of uncertainty do decision-makers tend to concentrate during inter-
national decision-making? Why is this and what effect does this have on decisions? What
uncertainty management methods do MNCs choose when they face various uncertainties across
different categories, and do these methods vary based on the type of uncertainties they face?”
Some scholars offer more specific questions, such as: “Does the multilevel interaction of factors at
nation-, industry-, firm-, and project-levels influence entry choice? Does the proper alignment of
entry mode choice with external and internal antecedents actually lead to superior performance?”
(Luo, 2001, p. 467) and “How do firm- and country- level variables in addition to industry-level
Page 23 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
variables influence the three types of MNC entry mode (i.e., greenfield, acquisition, joint venture)?”
(Elango & Sambharya, 2004, p. 121).
This paper also encourages more research on firm uncertainties. External uncertainties at the
environmental and industry level have been incorporated more frequently than internal, firm-
related uncertainties. A potential explanation is that firm uncertainties are considered more
controllable than industry or environmental uncertainties (Beckman et al., 2004). However, empiri-
cal research on the management of firm uncertainties (e.g., R&D uncertainty, operating uncer-
tainty) remains very limited. Furthermore, the reviewed studies revealed conflicting findings about
the impact of previous experience on international decision-making. Future research on these
dimensions of uncertainty would serve to enhance our understanding about the impact of firm-
level uncertainties on MNCs’ international activities. Research questions might include: What kinds
of firm uncertainties are the most important in decision-making, and when and how are these
uncertainties considered by MNCs? How do MNCs approach the management of firm uncertainties
during their international decision-making?
4.3. Addressing the role of individual decision-makers

Finally, the role and impact of individual managers’ perceptions of uncertainty, and their choice of
uncertainty management approaches, remain largely overlooked. Consideration of individual
managers as decision-makers has far-reaching implications for researching MNCs and understand-
ing the way in which multinationals operate (Piekkari & Welch, 2010; Roth & Kostova, 2003). Much
of the IB literature assumes managers are rational decision-makers who make decisions based on
accurate perceptions of situational conditions that are considered systematically in an analytic
rather than an intuitive way (Atuahene-Gima & Li, 2004; Ji & Dimitratos, 2013). In terms of the role
of individual managers in such rational decision-making processes, managers tend to rely on an
objective analysis of the situation and decision criteria, rather than their subjective preferences or
orientations when reaching a decision on the final mode choice (Dean & Sharfman, 1993; Ji &
Dimitratos, 2013). Despite emerging evidence about the significance of individual decision-makers,
most existing studies research managerial perceptions of uncertainty without considering differ-
ences between individuals (e.g., Luo, 2001; White, Boddewyn, & Galang, 2015). This is problematic
since the complete picture of international decision-making cannot be understood without
a proper understanding of the motivations and attributes of managers at the individual level of
analysis. Combining existing knowledge on uncertainty in IB with multilevel research and a greater
emphasis on the individual illuminates many avenues to enhance our understanding about how
decision-makers perceive the environment, make decisions based on their interpretations, and
influence MNC performance (e.g., Maitland & Sammartino, 2015; Minbaeva, 2016).
Furthermore, one central limitation within existing research that cannot be resolved without
understanding individual decision-makers is the conflicting findings and lack of consensus on MNC
choices of uncertainty management approaches. Empirical studies illustrate that MNCs are more
likely to choose a different cooperative/collaborative approach (e.g., a joint venture) than
a controlling approach (e.g., a wholly owned subsidiary) when entering culturally distant countries
(Brouthers & Brouthers, 2001). Other studies, however, find that greater cultural uncertainty
increases an MNC’s propensity to choose WOS (Tsang, 2005). Other studies present similar con-
flicting conclusions (e.g., Brouthers et al., 2008; Delios & Henisz, 2003a; Prater et al., 2001; Song,
Lee, & Makhija, 2015; Li & Li, 2010; Sartor & Beamish, 2014).
This paper suggests that one way to explain and address these inconsistencies is to scrutinize
the role of individual decision-makers in the MNC’s choice of uncertainty management approaches.
Recent studies observe that managers do not always define or react to uncertainty in ways that
theoretical decision models would predict (e.g., Buckley et al., 2007; Forlani, Parthasarathy, &
Keaveney, 2008). For instance, managers do not always think in terms of the probability of loss,
but rather in terms of the magnitude of loss, and that is why their ways of managing uncertainty
are more risky than firm-focused theories initially predict (Buckley et al., 2007). Furthermore, the
Page 24 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
study by Richards and Yang (2007) did not find support for transaction cost logic holding that when
environmental uncertainty is low, MNCs prefer to have entry modes involving higher resource
commitments. In the same study, this is explained as MNCs making different equity ownership
decisions in similar uncertain circumstances due to managers having different risk preferences
that influence different transaction governance structures. Furthermore, managers from different
national cultures are found to act differently, even in similar uncertain circumstances, due to their
heterogeneous, subjective risk perceptions and risk preferences. The study by Haley (2003) found
that managerial perceptions of environmental-, industry- and firm-related uncertainties have an
effect on MNC decision-making. Acquiring a good understanding of the kinds of characteristics that
influence managers’ perceptions of uncertainty and what influences their approaches to managing
it, would offer insights into the micro-foundations underlying MNC decision-making. MNCs’ deci-
sions are mediated by individual decision-makers, and the explanation of MNC decisions is there-
fore inherently a shorthand for a more complicated, micro-foundation-driven explanation
(Coleman, 1990).
Future research in this domain could thus benefit from addressing the connections between the
characteristics of the individual decision-maker and subjective perceptions about different dimen-
sions of uncertainty (see dotted line in Figure 1). This could include the following questions: How do
individual decision-makers manage perceived uncertainties? What influences the individual deci-
sion-maker’s choice of uncertainty management approach? Are there any other characteristics of
individual decision-makers not identified in this review that might be equally or more influential?
Liesch et al. (2011, p. 868) offer even more specific research questions on this topic such as: “How
does learning affect the individual manager’s ability to make astute risk assessments and to
accommodate risk? To what extent does this provide a robust explanation of successful interna-
tional expansion trajectories and idiosyncratic internationalization behaviors?”
It is commonplace for most key MNC decisions (e.g., those on entry mode or internationalization
expansions) to be made by organizational teams at MNC headquarters. Headquarters’ decisions are
indicators of the MNC’s optimal interest. In most studies, both headquarters at the collective level and
managers at the individual level are portrayed as rational decision-makers whose interests are
aligned (Aharoni et al., 2011). Such perceptions over-simplify MNCs’ decision-making processes and
shift focus from the decision-making process to the outcome. Ignoring the process in this way may
lead to misleading findings, since decision-makers daily face uncertainty arising from factors in the
environment, industry, and firm (Buckley et al., 2007). Within an MNC, individual perceptions of
foreign markets are likely to differ and there is no simple path from an individual’s perception to
the MNC’s perception (Coleman, 1990; Felin & Hesterly, 2007; Foss, Husted, & Michailova, 2010; Gupta,
Tesluk, & Taylor, 2007). Drawing on this multilevel perspective, it is important to understand the
interconnections between the characteristics of individual decision-makers, their impact on
a decision-making team’s preference for uncertainty and how that manifests itself at the MNC
level. An example question for future research in this regard could be: How do individual decision-
makers’ uncertainty management preferences influence MNC uncertainty management behavior at
the team and firm levels? Piaskowska and Trojanowski (2014, p. 55) offer more specific future
research questions: “How do executives’ attributes, beyond their demographic characteristics such
as age, tenure, education, experience or nationality, influence their top management team and
international strategic decisions? What is the role of emotions, personalities, and values in these
decisions?” In Figure 1, this research requirement is illustrated as a dotted arrow from the character-
istics of the individual decision-maker to the decision-making team’s uncertainty management
approaches to MNC uncertainty management methods.
5. Conclusion
Uncertainty is currently the only constant faced by MNCs. Because it has a significant impact on
the choices that MNCs make during their international decision-making, uncertainty is an impor-
tant phenomenon to study. This study has described various dimensions of environmental, indus-
try and firm uncertainty faced by MNCs and the approaches to uncertainty reduction and coping
Page 25 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
they use to manage such uncertainty. Through the evidence of its systematic literature review, this
paper has brought awareness that uncertainty is conceptualized and measured inconsistently in
the IB literature and this is problematic because it leads to fragmented and conflicting findings
about MNCs’ behavior and decision-making. Accordingly, this paper has offered an integrative
framework that organizes and synthesizes dimensions of uncertainty into modified and detailed
categorizations that are relevant for the IB audience. This framework encourages a more consis-
tent use of uncertainty dimensions and integration of a wider spectrum of different kinds of
uncertainties within single studies.
Furthermore, this paper has also revealed that in situations where MNC behavior deviates from
that predicted by theoretical models, the role of those individual decision-makers who determine
the uncertainty management approaches used by an MNC becomes influential. Reflecting on
systematic review findings, this paper has identified five integrating characteristics of the key
individual decision-makers: previous decision-making experience, tolerance for ambiguity, indivi-
dualistic/collectivistic orientation, position in the organizational hierarchy, decision-making orien-
tation. Understanding the impact of individual decision-makers and their characteristics on MNCs’
choice of uncertainty management approach is important because it would add significantly to the
predictive validity of theoretical models.
Lastly, the paper has offered an agenda for future research discussing three critical sugges-
tions. In the first place, to achieve more conceptually and statistically parsimonious dimen-
sions of uncertainty, future research should conduct more studies on the generalizability of
different constructs of uncertainty across industries and countries and integrate subjective
measures of uncertainty. In the second suggestion, future research should integrate a wider
spectrum of uncertainties within single studies. By including several dimensions of uncertainty
within a single study and considering firm dimensions of uncertainty along with environmental
and industry uncertainties, international decision-making models will be supplemented with
a greater variation of MNC behavior under the contextual effect of multiple uncertainties on
MNC operations. The third suggestion puts forward the notion of individual managers’ percep-
tions of uncertainty and their choice of uncertainty management approaches. Understanding
the characteristics that influence managers’ perceptions of uncertainty and the methods
available to manage it would in turn advance our understanding of the micro-foundations
underlying MNC decision-making.
Collectively, it is hoped that this systematic review of the literature and these suggestions for
future research serve to enrich this significant stream of IB research.
Funding “high-velocity”, “instability”, and “equivocality”.

This work was supported by the Ella ja Georg Ehrnroothin These synonyms of uncertainty were identified
Säätiö [PhD working grant]. based on both the theoretical conceptualization of
uncertainty in the work of Lipshitz and Strauss
Author details (1997), which is one of the most inclusive among
Sniazhana Sniazhko existing conceptualizations of uncertainty, and
E-mail: sniazhana.sniazhko@uva.fi consultation with an information specialist in the
School of Management and Public Administration, field of business studies.
University of Vaasa, PL 700, Vaasa 65101, Finland. 4. Other alternative classifications of uncertainty are
described in Root (1987), Das and Teng (1999,
Citation information 2001)), and Burgers and Padgett (2009). Miller’s (1992)
Cite this article as: Uncertainty in decision-making: classification of uncertainty, however, remains the
A review of the international business literature, most applicable to the context of this paper since it is
Sniazhana Sniazhko, Cogent Business & Management the most comprehensive in the IB field.
(2019), 6: 1650692. 5. Miller’s (1992) uncertainty management framework
consists of two uncertainty management methods
Notes and seven relevant approaches. Simangunsong et al.’s
1. Summary of the selected and reviewed articles is avail- (2012) uncertainty management framework consists
able from the author upon request. of two uncertainty management methods and 21
2. The year when the difference between uncertainty and relevant approaches.
risk was defined for the first time by Knight (1921). 6. Simangunsong et al. (2012) offer three types of flex-
3. The selected synonyms for “uncertainty” were ibility as separate approaches. To keep the list of
“complexity”, “ambiguity”, “risk”, “dynamism”, approaches simple, this paper uses one term of
Page 26 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
flexibility for its different forms. Similar simplification is market uncertainty, and network partner selection.
observed in Miller’s (1992) article. Organization Science, 15(3), 259–275. doi:10.1287/
7. Miller (1992) uses the term cooperation, while orsc.1040.0065
Simangunsong et al. (2012) uses collaboration. Since Berry, H. (2013). When do firms divest foreign operations?
the reviewed IB literature uses these two terms inter- Organization Science, 24(1), 246–261. doi:10.1287/
changeably, this paper terms this approach as colla- orsc.1110.0724
boration/cooperation (C3). Briner, R. B., & Walshe, N. D. (2015). From passively
8. Instead of avoidance Simangunsong et al. (2012) refer received wisdom to actively constructed knowledge:
to postponement, although the concept of the term is Teaching systematic review skills as a foundation of
the same in both frameworks: i.e., postpone or avoid evidence-based management. Academy of
the decision until the last possible moment in order for Management Learning and Education, 1, 63–80.
the situation to become more known. The reviewed IB Brouthers, K. D. (1995). The influence of international risk on
literature uses the term avoidance more frequently entry mode strategy in the computer software industry.
than postponement. Thus, this paper integrates the Management International Review, 35(1), 7–28.
term avoidance. Brouthers, K. D., & Brouthers, L. E. (2001). Explaining the
national cultural distance paradox. Journal of
References International Business Studies, 32(1), 177–189.
ABS [The Association of Business Schools] (2015). doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490944
Academic journal guide. Retrieved from: https:// Brouthers, K. D., & Brouthers, L. E. (2003). Why service and
gsom.spbu.ru/files/abs-list-2015.pdf. manufacturing entry mode choices differ: The influ-
Achrol, R. S., & Stern, L. W. (1988). Environmental deter- ence of transaction cost factors, risk and trust.
minants of decision-making uncertainty in marketing Journal of Management Studies, 40(5), 1179–1204.
channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1), doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00376
36–50. doi:10.1177/002224378802500104 Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Werner, S. (2002).
Agarwal, S., & Ramaswami, S. N. (1992). Choice of foreign Industrial sector, perceived environmental uncer-
market entry mode: Impact of ownership, location tainty and entry mode strategy. Journal of Business
and internationalization factors. Journal of Research, 55(6), 495–507. doi:10.1016/S0148-
International Business Studies, 23(1), 1–27. 2963(00)00154-5
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490257 Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Werner, S. (2008). Real
Aharoni, Y. (1966). The foreign investment decision pro- options, international entry mode choice and
cess. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. performance. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5),
Aharoni, Y., Tihanyi, L., & Connelly, B. L. (2011). 936–960. doi:10.1111/joms.2008.45.issue-5
Managerial decision-making in international busi- Brouthers, K. D., & Dikova, D. (2010). Acquisitions and real
ness: A forty-five-year retrospective. Journals of options: The greenfield alternative. Journal of
World Business, 46, 135–142. doi:10.1016/j. Management Studies, 47(6), 1048–1071. doi:10.1111/
jwb.2010.05.001 j.1467-6486.2009.00875.x
Ahmed, Z. U., Mohamad, O., Tan, B., & Johnson, J. P. Brouthers, L. E., Brouthers, K. D., & Werner, S. (2000).
(2002). International risk perceptions and mode of Perceived environmental uncertainty, entry mode
entry: A case study of Malaysian multinational firms. choice and satisfaction with EC-MNC performance.
Journal of Business Research, 55, 805–813. British Journal of Management, 11, 183–195.
doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00220-4 doi:10.1111/bjom.2000.11.issue-3
Ahsan, M., & Musteen, M. (2011). Multinational enter- Buckley, P. J., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. (2007). Do
prises’ entry mode strategies and uncertainty: managers behave the way theory suggests? A
A review and extension. International Journal of choice-theoretic examination of foreign direct
Management Reviews, 13, 376–392. doi:10.1111/ investment location decision-making. Journal of
ijmr.2011.13.issue-4 International Business Studies, 38(7), 1069–1094.
Akhter, S. H., & Choudhry, Y. A. (1993). Forced withdrawal doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400311
from a country market: Managing political risk. Burgers, W., & Padgett, D. (2009). Understanding envir-
Business Horizons, 36, 47–54. doi:10.1016/S0007- onmental risk for IJVs in China. Management
6813(05)80148-X International Review, 49(3), 337–357. doi:10.1007/
Akhter, S. H., & Robles, F. (2006). Leveraging internal s11575-009-0146-9
competency and managing environmental Cadogan, J. W., Cui, C. C., & Li, E. K. Y. (2003). Export
uncertainty. International Marketing Review, 23(1), market-oriented behavior and export performance.
98–115. doi:10.1108/02651330610646313 International Marketing Review, 20, 493–513.
Alderson, P., Green, S., & Higgins, J. (2004). Cochrane doi:10.1108/02651330310498753
reviewer’s handbook. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Cadogan, J. W., Paul, N., Salminen, R. T., Puumalainen, K.,
Arregle, J.-L., Miller, T. L., Hitt, M. A., & Beamish, P. W. & Sundqvist, S. (2001). Key antecedents to export
(2016). How does regional institutional complexity market-oriented behaviors: A cross-national empiri-
affect MNE internationalization? Journal of cal examination. International Journal of Research in
International Business Studies, 47(6), 697–722. Marketing, 18(3), 261–282. doi:10.1016/S0167-
doi:10.1057/jibs.2016.20 8116(01)00038-6
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Li, H. (2004). Strategic decision Campa, J. (1994). Multinational investment under uncer-
comprehensiveness and new product development tainty in the chemical processing industries. Journal
outcomes in new technology ventures. Academy of of International Business Studies, 25(3), 557–578.
Management Journal, 47(4), 583–597. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490212
Baum, J. R., & Wally, S. (2003). Strategic decision speed Celly, K. S., Spekman, R. E., & Kamauff, J. W. (1999).
and firm performance. Strategic Management Technological uncertainty, buyer prefernces and
Journal, 24, 1107–1129. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097- supplier assurances: An examination of pasific rim
0266 purchasing arrangements. Journal of International
Beckman, C. M., Haunschild, P. R., & Phillips, D. J. (2004). Business Studies, 30(2), 297–316. doi:10.1057/pal-
Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, grave.jibs.8490071
Page 27 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Certo, T. S., Connelly, B. L., & Tihanyi, L. (2008). Managers Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organi-
and their not-so rational decisions. Business zational task environments. Administrative Science
Horizons, 51(2), 113–119. doi:10.1016/j. Quarterly, 29, 52–73. doi:10.2307/2393080
bushor.2007.11.002 Di Gregorio, D. (2005). Re-thinking country risk: Insights
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (2001). from entrepreneurship theory. International Business
Organizational actions in response to threats and Review, 14(2), 209–226. doi:10.1016/j.
opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44 ibusrev.2004.04.009
(5), 937–955. Dickson, P. H., & Weaver, K. M. (1997). Environmental deter-
Chen, W., & Kamal, F. (2016). The impact of information minants and individual-level moderators of alliance
and communication technology adoption on multi- use. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 404–425.
national firm boundary decisions. Journal of Dow, D., Cuypers, I. R. P., & Ertug, G. (2016). The effects of
International Business Studies, 47(5), 563–576. within-country linguistic and religious diversity on for-
doi:10.1057/jibs.2016.6 eign acquisitions. Journal of International Business
Chiao, Y.-C., Lo, F.-Y., & Yu, C.-M. (2010). Choosing Studies, 47(3), 319–346. doi:10.1057/jibs.2016.7
between wholly-owned subsidiaries and joint ven- Dowell, G., & Killaly, B. (2009). Effect of resource variation
tures of MNCs from an emerging market. and firm experience on market entry decisions:
International Marketing Review, 27(3), 338–365. Evidence from U.S. telecommunication firms’ inter-
doi:10.1108/02651331011047998 national expansion decisions. Organization Science,
Cho, K. R., & Padmanabhan, P. (2005). Revisiting the role 20(1), 69–84. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0374
of cultural distance in MNC’s foreign ownership mode Duanmu, J.-L. (2012). Firm heterogeneity and location
choice: The moderating effect of experience attri- choice of Chinese Multinational Enterprises (MNEs).
butes. Internaitonal Business Review, 14(3), 307–324. Journal of World Business, 47(1), 64–72. doi:10.1016/
doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.01.001 j.jwb.2010.10.021
Clark, D. R., Li, D., & Shepherd, D. A. (2017). Country Elango, B., & Sambharya, R. B. (2004). The influence of
familiarity in the initial stage of foreign market industry structure on the entry mode choice of
selection. Journal of International Business Studies, overseas entrants in manufacturing industries.
1–31. doi:10.1057/s41267-017-0099-3 Journal of International Management, 10, 107–124.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2003.12.005
Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard Ellwood, P., Grimshaw, P., & Pandza, K. (2016).
University Press. Accelerating the innovation process: A systematic
Cui, A. S., Griffith, D. A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Dabic, M. (2006). review and realist synthesis of the research
The influence of market and cultural environmental literature. International Journal of Management
factors on technology transfer between foreign MNCs Reviews, 19(4), 510–530.
and local subsidiaries: A Croatian illustration. Journal Eroglu, S. (1992). The internationalization process of
of World Business, 41(2), 100–111. doi:10.1016/j. franchise systems: A conceptual model. International
jwb.2006.01.011 Marketing Review, 9(5), 19–30. doi:10.1108/
Cuypers, I., & Martin, X. (2010). What makes and what 02651339210020277
does not make a real option? A study of equity Erramilli, M. K., & D’Souza, D. E. (1995). Uncertainty and
shares in international joint ventures. Journal of foreign direct investment: The role of moderators.
International Business Studies, 41(1), 47–69. International Marketing Review, 12(3), 47–60.
doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.17 doi:10.1108/02651339510145771
Das, T., & Teng, B. (1999). Managing risks in strategic Erramilli, M. K., & Rao, C. P. (1993). Service firms’ entry-
alliances. The Academy of Management Executive, 13 mode choice: A modified transaction-cost analysis
(4), 50–62. approach. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 19–38.
Das, T., & Teng, B. (2001). Relational risk and its personal Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based
correlates in strategic alliances. Journal of Business view, heterogeneity, and the individual: Philosopicahl
and Psychology, 15, 449–465. doi:10.1023/ considerations on the loces of knowledge. Academy
A:1007874701367 of Management Review, 32, 195–218. doi:10.5465/
Dean, J., & Sharfman, M. (1993). Procedural rationality in amr.2007.23464020
the strategic decision- making process. Journal of Forlani, D., Parthasarathy, M., & Keaveney, S. M. (2008).
Management Studies, 30(4), 587–610. doi:10.1111/ Managerial risk perceptions of internaitonal
joms.1993.30.issue-4 entry-mode strategies. Internaitonal Marketing
Delios, A., & Henisz, W. J. (2003a). Policy uncertainty and Review, 25(3), 292–311. doi:10.1108/
the sequence of entry by Japanese firms, 1980–1998. 02651330810877225
Journal of International Business Studies, 34(3), Foss, N. J., Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2010).
227–241. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400031 Governing knowledge sharing in organizations:
Delios, A., & Henisz, W. J. (2003b). Political hazards, Levels of analysis, governanace mechanisms, and
experience, and sequential entry strategies: The research directions. Journal of Management
international expansion of Japanese firms, Studies, 47(3), 455–482. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
1980–1998. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11), 6486.2009.00870.x
1153–1164. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266 Gaba, V., Pan, Y., & Ungson, G. R. (2002). Timing of entry in
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic international market: An empirical study of
review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The sage U.S. fortune 500 firms in China. Journal of
handbook of organizational research methods (pp. International Business Studies, 33(1), 39–55.
671–689). London: Sage. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491004
Desbordes, R. (2007). The sensitivity of U.S. multinational Galang, R. M. N. (2012). Government efficiency and inter-
enterprises to political and macroeconomic uncer- national technology adoption: The spread of elec-
tainty: A sector analysis. International Business tronic ticketing among airlines. Journal of
Review, 16(6), 732–750. doi:10.1016/j. International Business Studies, 43(7), 631–654.
ibusrev.2007.08.006 doi:10.1057/jibs.2012.20
Page 28 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Gatignon, H., & Anderson, E. (1988). The multinational experiences. International Business Review, 1–11.
corporation’s degree of control over foreign subsidi- doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.05.009
aries: And empirical test of a transaction cost expla- Jiménez, A., & Delgado-Garciá, J. B. (2012). Proactive
nation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, management of political risk and corporate per-
4, 305–336. formance: The case of Spanish multinational
Gaur, A. S., Delios, A., & Singh, K. (2007). Institutional enterprises. International Business Review, 21(6),
environments, staffing strategies and subsidiary 1029–1040. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.11.008
performance. Journal of Management, 33(4), Jiménez, A., Luis-Rico, I., & Benito-Osorio, D. (2014). The
611–636. doi:10.1177/0149206307302551 influence of political risk on the scope of internatio-
Goodnow, J. D., & Hansz, J. H. (1972). Environmental nalization of regulated companies: Insights from
determinants of overseas market entry strategies. a Spanish sample. Journal of World Business, 49(3),
Journal of International Business Studies, 3, 33–60. 301–311. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2013.06.001
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490740 Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). Process of the inter-
Gray, B. (1994). Active and passive international market- nationalization development firm-a model of knowl-
ing strategies: The case of two state-owned edge foreign and increasing market commitments.
broadcasters. European Journal of Marketing, 28(2), Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.
42–56. doi:10.1108/03090569410055274 doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490676
Griffith, D. A., Harmancioglu, N., & Droge, C. (2009). Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2004).
Governanace decisions for the offshore outsourcing Governance matters III: Governance indicators for
of new product development in technology inteinsive 1996–2002 (World Bank policy research working
markets. Journal of World Business, 44, 217–224. paper). Washington, DC: World Bank.
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2008.08.007 Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). A causal model of
Grunert, K. G., Trondsen, T., Campos, E. G., & Young, J. A. linkages among environmental dimensions, macro
(2010). Market orientation in the mental models of organizational characteristics, and performance.
decision makers: Two cross-border value chains. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 570–598.
International Marketing Review, 27(1), 7–27. Keillor, B. D., Wilkinson, T. J., & Owens, D. (2005). Threats
doi:10.1108/02651331011020384 to international operations: Dealing with political risk
Gupta, A. K., Tesluk, P. E., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). at the firm level. Journal of Business Research, 58(5),
Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. 629–635. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.08.006
Organization Science, 18(6), 885–897. doi:10.1287/ Kelly, M. E., & Philippatos, G. C. (1982). Comparative ana-
orsc.1070.0337 lysis of the foreign investment evaluation practices
Haley, U. C. V. (2003). Assessing and controlling business by U.S.-based manufacturing multinational
risks in China. Journal of International Management, companies. Journal of International Business Studies,
9(3), 237–252. doi:10.1016/S1075-4253(03)00035-8 13, 19–42. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490556
Henisz, W. J., & Delios, A. (2001). Uncertainty, imitation, Kennedy, C. R., Jr. (1984). The external
and plant location: Japanese multinational corpora- environment-strategic planning interface:
tions, 1990–1996. Administrative Science Quarterly, U.S. multinational corporate practices in the 1980s.
46, 443–475. doi:10.2307/3094871 Journal of International Business Studies, 15, 99–108.
Hennart, J.-F., & Slangen, A. (2015). Yes, we really do need doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490484
more entry mode studies! A commentary on Shaver. Kiss, A. N., Williams, D. W., & Houghton, S. M. (2013). Risk
Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1), bias and the link between motivation and new ven-
114–122. doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.39 ture post-entry international growth. International
Hodgkinson, I. R., Hughes, P., & Arshad, D. (2016). Business Review, 22(6), 1068–1078. doi:10.1016/j.
Strategy development: Driving improvisation in ibusrev.2013.02.007
Malaysia. Journal of World Business, 51(3), 379–390. Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston, NY:
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2015.07.002 Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organi- Kobrin, S. J. (1979). Political risk: A review and
zation: Do American theories apply abroad? reconsideration. Journal of International Business
Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42–63. doi:10.1016/ Studies, 10, 67–80. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490631
0090-2616(80)90013-3 Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture
Hong, S. J., & Lee, S.-H. (2015). Reducing cultural uncer- on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International
tainty through experience gained in the domestic Business Studies, 19(3), 411–432. doi:10.1057/pal-
market. Journal of World Business, 50(3), 428–438. grave.jibs.8490394
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2014.06.002 Kraus, S., Ambos, T. C., Eggers, F., & Cesinger, B. (2015).
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Distance and perceptions of risk in internationaliza-
Antecedents and consequences. Journal of tion decisions. Journal of Business Research, 68(7),
Marketing, 57, 53–70. doi:10.1177/ 1501–1505. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.041
002224299305700304 Lee, S.-H., & Makhija, M. (2009a). Flexibility in internatio-
Ji, J., & Dimitratos, P. (2013). An empirical investiga- nalization: Is it valuable during an economic crisis?
tion into international entry mode Strategic Management Journal, 30, 537–555.
decision-making effectiveness. International doi:10.1002/smj.v30:5
Business Review, 22(6), 994–1007. doi:10.1016/j. Lee, S.-H., & Makhija, M. (2009b). The effect of domestic
ibusrev.2013.02.008 uncertainty on the real options value of international
Jiménez, A. (2010). Does political risk affect the scope of investments. Journal of International Business
the expansion abroad? Evidence from Spanish MNEs. Studies, 40(3), 405–420. doi:10.1057/jibs.2008.79
International Business Review, 19(6), 619–633. Lewis, G. J., & Harvey, B. (2001). Perceived environmental
doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.03.004 uncertainty: The extension of Miller’s scale to the
Jiménez, A., Benito-Osorio, D., Puck, J., & Klopf, P. (2017). natural environment. Journal of Management
The multi-faceted role of experience dealing with Studies, 38(2), 201–234. doi:10.1111/joms.2001.38.
policy risk: The impact of intensity and diversity of issue-2
Page 29 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Li, J., & Li, Y. (2010). Flexibility versus commitment: MNEs’ Mayrhofer, U. (2004). The influence of national origin and
ownership strategy in China. Journal of International uncertainty on the choice between cooperation and
Business Studies, 41(9), 1550–1571. doi:10.1057/ merger-acquisition: An analysis of French and
jibs.2010.25 German firms. International Business Review, 13(1),
Li, J., & Rugman, A. M. (2007). Rel options and the theory 83–99. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2003.07.002
of foreign direct investment. International Business Miller, K. D. (1992). A framework for integrated risk man-
Review, 16(6), 687–712. doi:10.1016/j. agement in international business. Journal of
ibusrev.2007.08.004 International Business Studies, 23(2), 311–331.
Lien, Y.-C., & Filatotchev, I. (2015). Ownership character- doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490270
istics as determinants of FDI location decisions in Miller, K. D. (1993). Industry and country effects on
emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 50 managers’ perceptions of environmental uncertain-
(4), 637–650. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2014.09.002 ties. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4),
Liesch, P. W., Welch, L. S., & Buckley, P. J. (2011). Risk and 693–714. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490251
uncertainty in internationalisation and international Minbaeva, D. (2016). Contextualising the individual in
entrepreneurship studies: Review and conceptual international management research: Black boxes,
development. Management International Review, 51 comfort zones and a future research agenda.
(6), 851–873. doi:10.1007/s11575-011-0107-y European Journal of International Management, 10
Lipshitz, R., & Strauss, O. (1997). Coping with uncertainty: (1), 95–104.
A naturalistic decision-making analysis. Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H., & Swoboda, B. (2010).
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Decades of research on market entry modes: What
Processes, 69(2), 149–163. doi:10.1006/ do we really know about external antecedents of
obhd.1997.2679 entry mode choice? Journal of International
Liu, G., Shah, R., & Babakus, E. (2012). When to mass Management, 16(1), 60–77. doi:10.1016/j.
customize: The impact of environmental uncertainty. intman.2009.09.002
Decision Science, 43(5), 851–887. doi:10.1111/j.1540- Mullin, B. A., & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Dimensions of subjec-
5915.2012.00374.x tive uncertainty in social identification and minimal
Liu, X., Gao, L., Lu, J., & Lioliou, E. (2016). Environmental intergroup discrimination. The British Journal of Social
risks, localization and the overseas subsidiary per- Psychology/The British Psychological Society, 37,
formance of MNEs from an emerging economy. 345–365. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01176.x
Journal of World Business, 51(3), 356–368. Oetzel, J. M., & Oh, C. H. (2014). Learning to carry the cat
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2015.05.002 by the tail: Firm experience, disasters, and multina-
Liu, Y., & Maula, M. (2016). Local partnering in foreign tional subsidiary entry and expansion. Organization
ventures: Uncertainty, experiential learning, and Science, 25(3), 732–756. doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0860
syndication in cross-border venture capital Ottesen, G. G., & Grønhaug, K. (2004). Exploring the
investments. Academy of Management Journal, 59 dynamics of market orientation in turbulent envir-
(4), 1407–1429. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0835 onments: A case study. European Journal of
López-Duarte, C., & Vidal-Suárez, M. M. (2010). External Marketing, 38(8), 956–973. doi:10.1108/
uncertainty and entry mode choice: Cultural dis- 03090560410539113
tance, political risk and language diversity. Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L., & Jiang, Y. (2008). An
International Business Review, 19(6), 575–588. institution-based view of international business
doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.03.007 strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of
Luo, Y. (2001). Determinants of entry in an emerging International Business Studies, 39(5), 920–936.
economy: A multilevel approach. Journal of doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400377
Management Studies, 38(3), 443–472. doi:10.1111/ Petersen, B., Pedersen, T., & Lyles, M. A. (2008). Closing
1467-6486.00244 knowledge gaps in foreign markets. Journal of
Luo, Y. (2003). Industrial dynamics and managerial net- International Business Studies, 39(7), 1097–1113.
working in an emerging market: The case of China. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400409
Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1315–1327. Piaskowska, D., & Trojanowski, G. (2014). Twice as smart?
doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266 The importance of managers’ formative-years’ inter-
Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. (2015). Managerial cogni- national experience for their international orienta-
tion and internationalization. Journal of International tion and foreign acquisition decisions. British Journal
Business Studies, 46(7), 733–760. doi: 10.1057/ of Management, 25(1), 40–57. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
jibs.2015.9 8551.2012.00831.x
Makhija, M. V., & Stewart, A. C. (2002). The effect of Piekkari, R., & Welch, C. (2010). The human dimension in
national context on perceptions of risk: A comparison multinational management: A way forward.
of planned versus free-market managers. Journal of Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(4),
International Business Studies, 33(4), 737–756. 467–476. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.008
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491042 Prater, E., Biehl, M., & Smith, M. A. (2001). Tradeoffs
Malhotra, S., Lin, X., & Farrell, C. (2016). Cross-national between flexibility and uncertainty. International
uncertainty and level of control in cross-border Journal of Operations & Production Management,
acquisitions: A comparison of Latin American and 21(5/6), 823–839. doi:10.1108/
U. S. multinationals. Journal of Business Research, 69 01443570110390507
(6), 1993–2004. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.145 Radaelli, G., & Sitton-Kent, L. (2016). Middle managers
Manolis, C., Nygaard, A., & Stillerud, B. (1997). Uncertainty and the translation of new ideas in organizations:
and vertical control: An international investigation. A review of micro-practices and contingencies.
International Business Review, 6(5), 501–518. Journal of International Management Reviews, 18(3),
doi:10.1016/S0969-5931(97)00018-8 311–332. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12094
Mascarenhas, B. (1982). Coping with uncertainty in inter- Reid, S. D. (1981). The decision-maker and export entry
national business. Journal of Internaitonal Business and expansion. Journal of International Business
Studies, 13(2), 87–98. doi:10.1057/palgrave. Studies, 12(2), 101–112. doi:10.1057/palgrave.
jibs.8490552 jibs.8490581
Page 30 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
Rhee, J. H., & Cheng, J. L. C. (2002). Foreign market uncertainty and divergent exchange rates across countries.
and incremental international expansion: The moderat- Journal of World Business, 50(3), 548–557.
ing effect of firm, industry, and host country factors. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2014.08.012
Management International Review, 42(4), 419–439. Sonnenfeld, J. (1981). Executive apologies for price fixing:
Richards, M., & Yang, Y. (2007). Determinants of foreign Role biased perceptions of causality. Academy of
ownership in internaitonal R&D joint ventures: Management Journal, 24(1), 192–198.
Transaction costs and national culture. Journal of Spich, R., & Grosse, R. (2005). How does homeland
International Management, 13(2), 110–130. security affect U.S. firms’ internaitonal competitive-
doi:10.1016/j.intman.2007.03.001 ness? Journal of International Management, 11(4),
Root, F. R. (1987). Entry strategies for international mar- 457–478. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2005.09.005
kets. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Sutcliffe, K. M., & Zaheer, A. (1998). Uncertainty in the
Roth, K., & Kostova, T. (2003). The use of the multina- transaction environment: An empirical test. Strategic
tional corporation as a research context. Journal of Management Journal, 19(1), 1–23. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)
Management, 29(6), 883–902. doi:10.1016/S0149- 1097-0266
2063(03)00083-7 Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Influences of foreign owenrship
Sanchez-Peinado, E., & Pla-Barber, J. (2006). level and entry mode choice in Vietnam.
A multidimensional concept of uncertainty and its International Business Review, 14(4), 441–463.
influence on the entry mode choice: An empirical doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.03.001
analysis in the service sector. International Business Tseng, C. H., & Lee, R. P. (2010). Host environmental
Review, 15(3), 215–232. doi:10.1016/j. uncertainty and equity-based entry mode dilemma:
ibusrev.2006.02.002 The role of market linking capability. International
Santangelo, G. D., & Meyer, K. E. (2011). Extending the Business Review, 19(4), 407–418. doi:10.1016/j.
internationalization process model: Increases and ibusrev.2010.03.002
decreases of MNE commitment in emerging Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice:
economies. Journal of International Business Studies, Taking social practices seriously. Academy of
42(7), 894–909. doi:10.1057/jibs.2011.25 Management Annals, 6, 285–336. doi:10.1080/
Sartor, M. A., & Beamish, P. W. (2014). Offshoring inno- 19416520.2012.672039
vation to emerging markets: Organizational control Werner, S., Brouthers, L. E., & Brouthers, K. D. (1996).
and informal institutional distance. Journal of International risk and perceived environmental
International Business Studies, 45(9), 1072–1095. uncertainty : The dimensionality and internal consis-
doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.36 tency of Miller ’s measure. Journal of International
Sashi, C. M., & Karuppur, D. P. (2002). Franchising in global Business Studies, 27(3), 571–587. doi:10.1057/pal-
markets: Towards a conceptual framework. grave.jibs.8490144
International Marketing Review, 19(5), 499–524. White, G. O., Boddewyn, J. J., & Galang, R. M. N. (2015).
doi:10.1108/02651330210445301 Legal system contingencies as determinants of poli-
Shepherd, N. G., & Rudd, J. M. (2014). The influence of context tical tie intensity by wholly owned foreign subsidi-
on the strategic decision-making process: A review of the aries: Insights from the Philippines. Journal of World
literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, Business, 50(2), 342–356. doi:10.1016/j.
16(3), 340–364. doi:10.1111/ijmr.2014.16.issue-3 jwb.2014.10.010
Simangunsong, E. S., Hendry, L., & Stevenson, M. (2012). Whitelock, J., & Jobber, D. (2004). An evaluation of
Supply chain uncertainty: A review and theoretical external factors in the decision of UK industrial
foundation for future research. International Journal firms to enter a new non-domestic market: An
of Production Research, 50(16), 4493–4523. exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing,
doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.613864 38(11), 1437–1455. doi:10.1108/
Siqueira, A. C. O., Priem, R. L., & Parente, R. C. (2015). 03090560410560182
Demand-side perspectives in international business: Williams, C., Lukoianova (Vashchilko), T., & Martinez, C. A.
Themes and future directions. Journal of (2017). The moderating effect of bilaterial invest-
International Management, 21(4), 261–266. ment treaty stringency on the relaitonship between
doi:10.1016/j.intman.2015.07.002 political instability and subsidiary ownership choice.
Slangen, A. H. L., & van Tulder, R. J. M. (2009). Cultural Internaitonal Business Review, 26(1), 1–11.
distance, political risk, or governance quality? doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.05.002
Towards a more accurate conceptualization and Xu, D., Pan, Y., & Beamish, P. W. (2004). The effect of
measurement of external uncertainty in foreign regulative and normative distances on MNE owner-
entry mode research. International Business Review, ship and expatriate strategies. Management
18(3), 276–291. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.02.014 International Review, 44(3), 285–307.
Song, S. (2014). Unfavorable market conditions, institu- Xu, D., & Shenkar, O. (2002). Institutional distance and
tional and financial development, and exits of for- the multinational enterprise. Academy of
eign subsidiaries. Journal of International Management Review, 27(4), 608–618.
Management, 20(3), 279–289. doi:10.1016/j. Yasai-Ardekani, M. (1986). Structural adaptations to
intman.2013.10.007 environments. Academy of Management Review,
Song, S. (2015). Exchange rate challenges, flexible 11(1), 9–21. doi:10.5465/amr.1986.4282607
intra-firm adjustments, and subsidiary longevity. Zafar, U. A., Mohamad, O., Tan, B., & Johnson, J. P. (2002).
Journal of World Business, 50(1), 36–45. doi:10.1016/ International risk perceptions and mode of entry:
j.jwb.2014.01.001 A case study of Malaysian multinational firms.
Song, S., Lee, S.-H., & Makhija, M. (2015). Operational Journal of Business Research, 55(10), 805–813.
hedging in foreign direct investments under volatile doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00220-4
Page 31 of 32
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692
© 2019 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com
Page 32 of 32

Uncertainty in Decision-Making A Review of The International Business Literature

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uncertainty in Decision-Making A Review of The International Business Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cogent Business & Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20

Uncertainty in decision-making: A review of the

To cite this article: Sniazhana Sniazhko | (2019) Uncertainty in decision-making: A review of

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1650692

© 2019 The Author(s). This open access

Published online: 20 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 33848

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 38 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE

ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Subjects: Risk Management; Strategic Management; International Business

Keywords: uncertainty; decision-making; MNC; systematic review

2.1. Literature search

2.2. Selection process

2.3. Analysis of selected articles

Table 1. Summary of the article selection process

● Articles in the area of psychology or

capital budgeting procedures or cost of capital

were identified in them. To provide a parsimonious categorization of uncertainty, Miller’s (1992)

Figure 1. Integrative concep- MNC uncertainty management methods

(I1) Previous decision-making experience

3.1. Dimensions of uncertainty

infrastructure, efficiency of local institutions,

Figure 2. Number of articles on 39

Environmental unceratinty Industry uncertainty Firm uncertainty

Although IB scholars acknowledge the existence of different categories of uncertainty,

3.2. Uncertainty management

3.3. Uncertainty reduction

Environmental Industry uncertainties Firm uncertainties

Environmental Industry uncertainties Firm uncertainties

Environmental Industry uncertainties Firm uncertainties

Decision speed Empirical 1

Proactive collaboration/cooperation (R2) is another way to increase the predictability of the

3.4. Uncertainty coping

3.5. Determinants of the choice of uncertainty management approach

The systematic review regarding individual-level characteristics of decision-makers was

perceived uncertainty and therefore more

The individualistic/collectivistic orientation (I3) of managers is shown to influence their percep-

The frame of mind in which decision-makers process information is referred to as decision-

4. Toward a future research agenda

4.1. Toward more consistent choices in the conceptualization and measurement of

In sum, inconsistencies in the conceptualization and measurement of uncertainty are proble-

In particular, uncertainties at the firm level are under-explored in IB studies compared to

4.3. Addressing the role of individual decision-makers

Funding “high-velocity”, “instability”, and “equivocality”.

You might also like